Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

READING AND BERKSHIRE &c. BILL (By Order)

SOUTH BUCKS AND OXFORDSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

PETITION

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition which has been signed by 5,500 workers in the newspaper and printing trade, all belonging to their respective trade unions.
The Petition concerns the issue which dominates our age, the avoidance of nuclear war. It pleads, in particular, that there should be an ending of H-bomb tests. It reads:
That each nuclear bomb test spreads an added burden of radio-active elements over every part of the world. Each added amount of radiation causes damage to the health of human beings all over the world and causes damage to the pool of human germ plasma such as to lead to an increase in the number of seriously defective children that will be born in future generations.
So long as these weapons are in the hands of only three powers an agreement for their control is feasible. If testing continues, and the possession of these weapons spreads to additional Governments, the danger of outbreak of a cataclysmic nuclear war through the reckless action of some international leader will be greatly increased.
An agreement to stop nuclear bomb tests now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is entitled to give only the gist of the Petition, not the whole of it.

Mr. Allaun: The Petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House will make an urgent and determined effort to secure international agreement for

the immediate cessation of all nuclear weapon tests.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
In order to save the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish the Clerk to read the Petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOMALILAND

Self-Government

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when Her Majesty's Government proposes to extend self-government to the British Somaliland Protectorate, in view of the United Nations decision that Somalia shall become independent in 1960; and what opportunity will be given to the Protectorate to become incorporated in a Greater Somalia.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 6th June, 1956. The OFFICIAL REPORT for that day contains the statement of policy for the Somaliland Protectorate which was made on 29th May, 1956, by my noble Friend, the then Under-Secretary of State, when he was visiting the Protectorate.

Mr. Brockway: Those replies were eighteen months ago, and there have been happenings since. In view of the very close identity between the Somali peoples and the sense of frustration that there will be in 1960 if some of them have independence and others do not, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have discussions with those people for the purpose of achieving an agreed advance towards unity and independence?

Hon. Members: Within the Commonwealth?

Mr. Brockway: Yes.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to events in 1960, I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 5 of the statement to which I have referred. With regard to talks with other Governments, I would


refer him to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Rugby on 27th January.

Sir R. Robinson: Will my right hon. hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility of the government of British Somaliland being carried out without a financial subsidy from the United Kingdom by 1960?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None whatever, I should say.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Constitutional Changes

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding plans for the implementation of the constitutional changes in Kenya.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement upon the proposed measures for constitutional advance in Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The White Paper announcing the decisions of the Government upon the powers, functions and composition of the Council of State and the method of nominating candidates for the specially elected seats was published last Thursday. I hope that these details will be carefully studied in Kenya, since I believe that, with the other decisions I have already announced, they constitute a coherent, workable and fair pattern of constitutional advance which should reassure all who have their homes in the territory.
Arrangements have now been made for the elections to be held in the six new African communal constituencies. Nomination day will be next Thursday, 20th February, and polling will take place over the week-end beginning 22nd March. I hope that the whole Constitution will be brought into force very soon thereafter by Order-in-Council.

Mr. Brockway: Whilst recognising that the right hon. Gentleman has gone a considerable way to meet the views of this side of the House on the Council of State, may I ask whether, in view of the continued African opposition to these constitutional changes, he will take steps to set a period within which they can be reviewed and also state the ultimate

object of universal adult suffrage in that Colony?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that these proposals ought to be given a fair trial and a substantial working period before they should be reviewed. As to the ultimate status of Kenya, I said when I was there recently that I could not foresee the date on which it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to relinquish control over the territory. My own view is that, whatever its final evolution, the Constitution in Kenya must enable all who live there, of whatever race, to feel that they have an enduring rôle to play and see that the high standards set are maintained.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have the utmost sympathy for more African participation in this Constitution and feel, unlike the Government Front Bench, that it should have gone further? Is he also aware that some of us feel that the Africans might at least have given this Constitution a trial? In the event of disappointment, which of course there might be, they might then be able to walk out and not be martyrs before the event as perhaps they might be at present.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a very sensible view.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House welcome these proposals, which are a very important advance, especially the abandoning of the old doctrine of parity? It is important that we should secure the co-operation of all Africans in this matter, and I think that this turns on the Council of State. In order to reassure the Africans further, so that they will co-operate as we all desire that they should do to make the Constitution a success, will the right hon. Gentleman again give an assurance, which I know is in the White Paper, that the ultimate control of Kenya and its destiny still rests with Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said about these proposals. As to the latter part of his supplementary question, I can give him that assurance absolutely.

Sir R. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the desire of my hon. Friends also that Africans in Kenya should follow the sensible advice given them from the other side of the House and try to make this compromise work?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Kikuyu Reserves (Unemployment)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals he has made, following his discussions with Mr. E. A. Vasey, for assisting the Kenya Government to undertake relief works among the Kikuyu in order to reduce unemployment in the Kikuyu reserves.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Provision is already made by the Kenya Government within their emergency vote for relief works in the Kikuyu areas, which suffer from special difficulties in reabsorbing and resettling released detainees. Her Majesty's Government have made each year a general contribution towards expenditure arising from the emergency, and the money is not directed specifically to particular subheads within the emergency vote.

Mr. Robinson: Is it not inviting trouble to allow the present level of unemployment in the reserves to continue unchecked, and is it not as necessary for Her Majesty's Government to assist the Kenya Government in this matter as it was during the height of the emergency?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are assisting them indeed, and in quite a definite way, about which there is another Question on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the major area of unemployment is the Kiambu area, near Nairobi, and that if Africans would accept agricultural work, as opposed to wishing to work in a semi-urban area, the situation would be relieved quite quickly?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is something in that. I believe that I am right in saying that about 50,000 people have been found employment recently in the Kiambu area.

Council of State (Constitution and Powers)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the constitution and powers of the Council of State in Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) last Wednesday. The White Paper was published on Thursday, 13th February.

Mrs. Castle: While we all recognise that in a multi-racial society there must be some safeguard for minorities against discriminatory legislation, is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have undermined the confidence in the sort of safeguard which the Council of State was intended to be, by their treatment of the African Affairs Board in the Federation? Has not the time come to consider setting up an entirely independent body—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—probably for the Commonwealth as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—which would discuss—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Short supplementary questions are desirable.

Mrs. Castle: I had almost finished, Mr. Speaker. Has not the time come to consider setting up an independent body for the Commonwealth as a whole which could decide these matters of discriminatory legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—on a purely judicial and not a political basis?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.

Education

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will recommend to the Government of Kenya the desirability of holding a general inquiry into education in Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. A comprehensive examination of the African educational system was undertaken in 1949 by the Beecher Committee, on whose Report the accepted programme of the Kenya Government has been based ever since. Two education experts from


the United Kingdom will shortly visit Kenya to advise on certain aspects of European and Asian secondary education.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

United Nations Visiting Mission (Report)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions have been reached on the recommendations in the report of the United Nations Visiting Mission to Tanganyika.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The views of Her Majesty's Government on this Report are set out in the observations which will be submitted shortly to the Trusteeship Council. A copy of these observations will be placed in the Library of the House. Her Majesty's Government consider that the Report, taken as a whole, is a helpful and constructive document, giving a fair and balanced account of the situation in Tanganyika.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that expression of opinion about the Report, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would say what the Government's attitude is towards the recommendation that there should be an optional vote, rather than a compulsory vote, in constituencies when candidates of the three races are before the electorate, that the qualifications should be liberalised and that following the elections there should be a constitutional committee to prepare the way for universal suffrage?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member had better wait and read the observations on this important matter in full and then question them by all means.

Primary Education

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what fees are charged in Tanganyika for an African child receiving primary education.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): Ten shillings a year, to cover the cost of school materials supplied.

Mr. MacPherson: Will the hon. Gentleman say how that compares with the average level of the lowest-paid workers? Is it not the case that a great

many workers in the Colony are paid no more than about 10s. to 15s. a week, including a ration allowance, and does not that correspond to a fee per child in the primary schools of this country of £8 to £10 a year?

Mr. Profumo: There is no evidence that these arrangements are deterring children from being sent to school.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Prohibited Immigrants

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the numbers of people, Europeans, Asians and Africans, respectively, who have been declared prohibited immigrants in Tanganyika during the five-year period 1953 to 1957.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Eleven Europeans, five Asians and one African. The declaration of one Asian as a prohibited immigrant was later revoked.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask the Minister if he has final powers in this matter? Is he aware that his puerile behaviour in this respect appears fatuous to most people in East Africa, and will he not appoint an all-party committee of the House to inquire into these matters, particularly into the exclusion of people like Mr. Basil Davidson, Mr. George Hauser, and many others?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These matters are gone into searchingly. They are the responsibility of the Governor and the Executive Council in each of the territories. In Tanganyika there are Europeans, Asians and Africans on that Council and we can safely leave to them decisions of this kind. Of course, I have an overriding personal responsibility as Secretary of State, but I have no wish to use it in matters of this kind. It seems to me highly desirable that in such confidential matters, where all three races come to the same conclusion, the decision should be left to them.

Proposed Constitutional Committee

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply was given by the Government of Tanganyika to the suggestions regarding the


appointment of a constitutional committee made by Mr. Julius Nyerere before his resignation as a nominated member of the Legislative Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The intention to appoint such a committee after the completion of the elections in 1959 was announced by the Governor in April, 1957. When Mr. Nyerere suggested in the Legislative Council in September, 1957, that the committee should be set up forthwith, the Minister concerned indicated that this was not acceptable for two main reasons. First, it would involve serious delay in the elections now planned to begin in September this year; second, it is in any case desirable that any such committee should contain elected representatives among its members.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not a fact that Mr. Nyerere's suggestion was a very reasonable one, and, in view of the remarks made in the report by the mission on behalf of the Trusteeship Council, would it not have been in the best interests of Tanganyika for this constitutional committee to have been appointed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think so. I discussed this quite amicably with Mr. Nyerere himself, and I remain of the same opinion as I was then.

Government Newspapers (Sale)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Government of Tanganyika are selling to a private company their newspapers in Swahili.

Mr. Profumo: The Tanganyika Government are transferring the ownership of their three Swahili newspapers to Tanganyika National Newspapers Limited. This is an independent company whose overall directions will be in the hands of a board of trustees, which will hold all the shares.

Mr. Skeffington: In view of the fact that these newspapers have been regarded as a very useful medium for public relations in Tanganyika, and as, according to the Answer, they are to be transferred to an independent company—although it has trustees—can the hon. Member say why the change has been made?

Mr. Profumo: Because there was a suspicion in some quarters about control by the Government. I think that the change will represent an improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

s.s. "West Indian" (Replacement)

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken by the Governments of the West Indies to replace the West Indies Navigation Company's ship "West Indian"; and what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government with the West Indian Governments to develop communications between the Colonies.

Mr. Profumo: Arrangements have been made for two ships to be chartered, and I expect them to be in service next month. Her Majesty's Government have the needs of the West Indies for improved communications constantly in mind. Recently they have given technical advice on the charter of the two ships, and the improvement of air services in the area has been encouraged.

Mr. Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman say who is providing the two ships which he mentions and whether anything is being done by Her Majesty's Government, possibly through the Colonial Development Corporation? Two ships, of course, are quite inadequate to meet the need.

Mr. Profumo: This is an Interim arrangement. One is a Danish vessel and one is a German vessel. Colonial Development and Welfare had been used in the previous arrangement. As this is only an interim one, the hon. Member can rest assured that Her Majesty's Government will continue to take an interest in the long-term arrangements for communications between the West Indies.

Missile Tracking Station

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the United States Navy is at present actively engaged in constructing a missile tracking station on the suggested site for the West Indies capital at Chaguaramas.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the United States Government are building a missile tracking station there, but they have given an assurance that the work now in progress will not prejudice the findings of the Joint Commission on the capital site.

Mr. Royle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that activities of this kind have not been helpful in the establishment of the capital of the Federation of the West Indies? Could he also tell me whether the establishment of Federation will make any difference in the leases of land to the United States all over the West Indies, leases which were made in exchange for American destroyers during the war?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The latter part of the supplementary is a much wider question. In regard to the first part, the arrangements were already well in train, and it would have been exceedingly difficult for the United States Government to have withdrawn from their work. They have given the assurance which I have mentioned, and they also tell me that the site is on a high ridge in a remote and undeveloped part of the leased base, in an area which would probably not be suitable for any buildings in connection with the capital.

Rice Crops

Sir R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to secure an adequate supply of rice for the West Indies during the current year, in view of the acknowledgement of the British Guiana Rice Marketing Board that it cannot fulfil its contractual commitments following the comparative failure of the recent crop.

Mr. Profumo: So far I have had no requests from the West Indies for help in obtaining supplies, but I am asking the Governor-General for information and will write to my hon. Friend when I receive it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Self-government (Universal Adult Suffrage)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given by Her Majesty's

Government to the proposal of the Northern People's Congress of Nigeria that they should be granted self-government on 15th March, 1959; and if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that a universal adult suffrage shall be introduced in the Northern Region before self-government is introduced.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have not so far received the proposal, by Her Majesty's Government will, of course, stand by the undertaking given in 1953 regarding the granting of regional self-government to any region requesting it. This undertaking did not presuppose the adoption of any particular form of franchise, but the North has adopted adult male suffrage for elections in the region to the Federal House of Representatives.

School Fees, Eastern Region (Disturbances)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the decision of the Governor-General of Nigeria to invoke emergency powers in areas of Eastern Nigeria where disturbances have broken out over the restoration of school fees.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In order to finance their programme of universal primary education, the Eastern Regional Government last month announced their decision to introduce certain fees with effect from the beginning of the new school year in January. The resentment aroused in parts of the region by this decision led to mass demonstrations, mostly by women, and to widespread acts of lawlessness. Police action met with resistance. On 5th February, the Governor-General, following a recommendation by the Governor of the Eastern Region and his Security Committee, and after consultation with the Federal Prime Minister, applied emergency powers to 9 out of 29 divisions in the region and to one urban area. Four more divisions were included on 12th February. Strong police reinforcements have been sent into the region. These actions, which were endorsed by the Federal Council of Ministers, have had the effect of restraining violence. One man was killed on the only occasion when the police have had to open fire, and one man has since died. The situation has been calmer in the last few days and some schools closed by the demonstrators have begun to reopen.
In a broadcast on 9th February, the Premier of the Eastern Region called for restraint and for representations to be made only in a constitutional manner. The Eastern House of Assembly met on 13th February, and has been debating a Government motion embodying certain modifications in the application of school fees.

Mr. Irving: I think we all regret that it has been necessary to invoke these powers, and we all hope that it will not be necessary to continue them. In view of the fact that the Eastern Region is the poorest of the regions, and that there is a tremendous and inspiring demand for education there, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it possible that some subvention from the Federal Government would help the Regional Government to get over this particular difficulty and to carry on with the progress made so far?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Eastern Region of Nigeria has been fully internally self-governing since August of last year, and we must leave such arguments to that Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Reforms (Cox Commission)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the reforms proposed by the Cox Commission relevant to the area of Paramount Chief Kamal II of Sierra Leone have been effected and which remain to be carried out.

Mr. Profumo: The relevant reforms adopted following the Cox Commission were the revision of the tribal authorities to enable taxpayers to be represented, the election of chiefdom committees to give regular advice to the paramount chiefs on the conduct of affairs, and the appointment of presidents of native courts. All these reforms were effected in Bombali before Paramount Chief Kamal II was reinstated. The Government are also considering reform of the local tax system.

Mrs. White: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there were a great many other recommendations in the Cox Commission's Report, some of which, I am sure, must be relevant to

this district? Will he look at this matter again? Is he aware that there is still a good deal of dissatisfaction at the fact that the chief was allowed to go back before all these reforms took place?

Mr. Profumo: My information is that the discontent comes from a minority.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA

Communications

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to improve communications in the Gambia; and whether he will state the amount to be spent in 1958 on communications in Bathurst and the Protectorate, respectively.

Mr. Profumo: The Gambia Government have a considerable programme of road improvement and extension in hand. I will be glad to send the hon. Member detailed information.

Mr. Oram: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the proposed expenditure will be satisfactory, having regard to the fact that outside Bathurst there are only earth roads and that most of those are impassable in the wet season?

Mr. Profumo: The programme contains arrangements for the improvement and reconstruction of feeder roads in the Protectorate.

Rice Crops

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what advice is being given by the Government of the Gambia to rice growers to prevent them over-polishing their rice crops and thus running the risk of causing beri-beri.

Mr. Profumo: The Gambia Government give advice on the parboiled method used elsewhere, provides demonstrations of milling processes designed to preserve the germ, and encourages the selection of a white strain which will breed true and suit the local taste.

Mr. Oram: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that a local trader has installed a rice-polishing machine which over-polishes the rice, with the dangers to health implied in my Question? Will he encourage the establishment of co-operatives, so that the farmers may own


their own hand rice-milling machines, which I understand are much more satisfactory?

Mr. Profumo: I will certainly consider that suggestion. I would make the comment now, that no cases of beri-beri have beer reported for ten years.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Table of Precedence (City Councillors)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what communication has been received by him, since 1st December, 1957, from Gibraltar expressing dissatisfaction that in the table of precedence, heads of Her Majesty's Government Departments take precedence before the elected city councillors.

Mr. Profumo: No formal communication later than the date mentioned has been received, but I have received a personal letter from the Mayor enclosing a copy of a city council resolution, to which I have replied.

Mr. Dodds: As more people than the mayor are interested in the nature of the reply, would the Under-Secretary of State tell us if that reply will be much more convincing than the one he gave in December? Also, is he not aware that the reply he then gave was very disappointing to the people of Gibraltar, but that, in the hope that common sense will prevail before long, I will refrain from making any caustic comments?

Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for refraining. Perhaps he will understand if too, refrain from making any comments.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date he replied to the representations of 13th November, 1956, made by the city councillors of Gibraltar in respect of the question of the city councillors and the table of precedence.

Mr. Profumo: It was considered that the matter could most profitably be discussed between the Colonial Office and the Governor in person. The first opportunity for such a discussion arose when the Governor came to London in June, 1957. Owing to a misunderstanding, the

outcome of this discussion was not embodied in a formal dispatch until 22nd October. 1957.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Under-Secretary stating that there is now a satisfactory answer to those representations?

Mr. Profumo: I would not like to go as far as to say that the answer will necessarily be satisfactory.

Mr. Dodds: Well, what does the hon. Gentleman think?

Mr. Profumo: As I am in part responsible for the answer, I hope it will be at any rate a satisfactory explanation to those concerned of why this difficult problem has to be considered further before we can make any radical change.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Council of Women (Petition)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take on the petition presented to the Governor of Hong Kong, by the Hong Kong Council of Women in December of last year, for the abolition of concubinage.

Mr. Profumo: This is a matter for the Governor of Hong Kong. He is carefully studying the petition and will reply to it as soon as possible.

Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the principle of concubinage is repugnant to the equality of the sexes, that it has been banned in Red China and Formosa, and, further, that we ought to put our own house in order?

Mr. Profumo: I must repudiate entirely the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Cotton Goods (Exports)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the total production of cotton goods in Hong Kong suitable for the British market is exported in the form of unfinished, grey unbleached, and finished fabrics, respectively.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures will show an increasing tendency by Hong Kong to export more and more of those cotton goods to this country? Is he aware that textile workers in Hong Kong are now working from 12 to 14 hours per day in a six-day week and are getting £6 per month for it? Does he not realise that unless he can urge the Government of Hong Kong to establish a minimum living wage there, British workers simply cannot face that type of unfair competition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is far too big a matter to settle by question and answer, but I would remind the hon. Member that we have certain obligations to British Colonies which have no independent economic existence at G.A.T.T. except through the United Kingdom and that we should think very seriously before we change our historic policy.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the Secretary of State's failure to give me an answer now, I will give him the chance to reply later by raising the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Following is the reply:
Total exports from Hong Kong of the locally manufactured cotton fabrics in question, with exports to the United Kingdom, are:

'000 square yards


—
January-October, 1957


Total Exports
Exports to United Kingdom


Unfinished (grey, unbleached) fabrics




Drills, ducks and jeans
24,718
21,718


Shirtings
1,271
382


Sheetings
52,467
27,799


Cotton fabrics
6,945
4,243



85,401
54,142


Finished fabrics




Drills, ducks, jeans and mattings (white or dyed)
40,446
745


Sheeting, white
458
32


Poplins
7,193
4,230


Cotton fabrics (other than grey) not elsewhere specified
27,024
2,758



75,121
7,765

Figures for the total production of these goods are not available in London. The Government of Hong Kong are being asked if they are available locally, and, if so, I will write to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. LUCIA

Cultivable Land

Mr. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the cultivable land is actually under cultivation in St. Lucia; and what further steps are being taken.

Mr. Profumo: About 35 per cent. is fully cultivated. To ensure more adequate cultivation of the remainder is largely a problem of improving peasant agriculture. To this end, schemes financed from Colonial Development and Welfare funds provide for agricultural extension staff, who assist by advice and demonstration, and for a variety of other agricultural development activities. Another recently approved scheme will provide agricultural credit which has up to now been the main lack.

Mr. Royle: Do not those figures prove that there is a lack of development in all these Leeward and the Windward Islands, and is it not time that more progress was made? Cannot the Colonial Development Corporation, particularly in view of the fact that we gave it some more money a fortnight ago, do something more about these groups of islands?

Mr. Profumo: A considerable proportion of St. Lucia's allocation under the 1955–60 Colonial Development and Welfare Act, which was a generous one, has been or is being devoted to productive schemes. The problem is not only one of money, but also of changing established attitudes.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS

General Strike

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the terms on which the recent general strike in the Bahamas was ended; and what steps he proposes to eliminate the workers' grievances.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The dispute between the taxi-cab union and the tour


company operators, which led to the general strike, has been settled by a detailed legal agreement, a copy of which I am placing in the Library of the House. It is not possible to summarise its contents shortly, but it provides in detail for the way in which passengers from the airport should be transported in cars belonging to the two parties to the dispute. There were no specific terms on which the general strike ended, but, broadly speaking, there was a return to work on the same terms as those applying before the strike, wherever jobs were available.
With regard to the last part of the Question, the Governor informs me that it is now hoped that there will be support in the House of Assembly for the enactment of legislation for three purposes: first, to govern the remuneration and conditions of service of hotel workers and to provide machinery for dealing with grievances; second, to set up effective machinery for collective bargaining and to enable hotel and agricultural workers to form their own trade unions; and thirdly, to establish a Labour Department on the lines proposed in the Grossmith-Ogilvie Report—made by two members of my Department.

Mr. Allaun: Whilst I note that reply, will the Minister agree that the matters referred to on the Order Paper, particularly in Question 42, are the ones underlying the dispute? Should they not be satisfied immediately to prevent further unrest, and do they not go beyond the three matters to which he has referred?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will answer Question 42 when we get to it.

Emergency Powers

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the legislation concerning emergency powers recently introduced in the Bahamas.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that recently a Bill was introduced into the Bahamas Legislative Council which, if passed, will give almost unlimited power to the Governor to rule by order and regulation; if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that such powers should be given; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In practically all Colonial Territories the Governor has power, under either United Kingdom instruments or local legislation, to declare a state of emergency and to make emergency Regulations. There are at present no such powers in the Bahamas, and the Bill recently introduced into the Bahamas Legislature is designed to give the Governor the necessary powers. These would be exercised by the Governor only in time of emergency.

Mrs. White: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the timing of this legislation is regarded as peculiarly provocative, coming as it does immediately after the peaceful settlement of a dispute? Will he tell us whether this action was taken on the initiative of the Governor and why it is needed now, when, for instance, after a much worse disturbance in 1942 when the Duke of Windsor was Governor, no such powers were apparently required?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a wise move, and I have no indication that it is being resented.

Mr. D. Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe, when the strike was settled as amicably as he indicated in answer to a previous Question, that the new machinery will have a reasonable chance of working in these islands when this kind of legislation is being introduced to give the Governor unlimited power at the Governor's discretion?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, I do.

Hotel and Agricultural Workers (Trade Unions)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been made by the Government of the Bahamas to the request by the Bahamas Federation of Labour for union recognition, the lifting of barriers preventing hotel and agricultural workers forming their own unions, a 48-hour week, security against unjust dismissal and setting up a complaints procedure, as a result of the settling of the recent strike and to prevent further unrest in the island.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not aware that the Government of the Bahamas have refused registration of any legally constituted trade union. Since the settlement


of the recent strike, legislation has been introduced to enable hotel and agricultural workers to form their own unions to govern remuneration and conditions of service of hotel workers; and to provide machinery for dealing with their grievances.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister also favour the appointment of a Royal Commission, as has been requested, and if so, when?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Dockyard Employees (Strike Penalties)

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far he was aware, before its publication by the Admiral Superintendent of Malta Dockyard, of the notice dated 20th January, 1958, laying down the penalties to be imposed on all dockyard employees who in future take any part in stoppages of work.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was fully consulted at all stages about the publication of the notice.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware that we are very much surprised at that Answer? Does he realise that there has been a loss of only 4½ hours work in the dockyard at Malta during the last twelve months? Further, does he not think that the circular, which states in one part that any people going on strike in future will have their paid leave entitlement reduced, that in the case of established men their position will be examined and that in the case of un-established men their records will be examined with a view to their suitability for establishment, reflects a very high-handed attitude indeed? In view of the delicacy of the position of Malta—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—will not the Minister take steps to have this circular withdrawn before it leads to further trouble?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The dockyard at Malta certainly has an enviable and splendid record of good industrial relations. The circular issued by the Admiralty should be read as a whole in order to put that passage in perspective.

It was an attempt, and I think a useful one, to remind the workers there, at a time when we were hearing a great deal about privileges, of their obligations as well.

Constitution

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the present intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the future constitution of Malta.

Mr. Owen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made with discussions concerning the future constitution of Malta; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and other hon. Members on 23rd January.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the great concern recently expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and others in the Church Assembly about religious freedom in Malta, and will he give an assurance that any new Constitution will include specific safeguards to prevent the violation of the principle of religious toleration?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am on record as regarding that as of first importance and I hope that, in addition to reminding the House of the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the hon. Member will also draw attention to Sir Kenneth Grubb's letter in The Times of yesterday.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of Press statements that Her Majesty's Ministers have met the 1922 Committee and discussed the Malta situation, and as the Government made the matter of Malta's future Constitution an all-party matter and set up a Round Table Conference to discuss it, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government still stand by the proposals of the Round Table Conference which the House debated and accepted?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have not departed from the policy announced in the House in favour of the integration plan, on the assumption that, as recommended by the Malta Round Table Conference, the


Maltese people themselves demonstrate clearly and unmistakably that they desire it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Situation

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for ending the Cyprus deadlock.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement of the Government's policy towards Cyprus.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the future of Cyprus.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what constitutional proposals he is making for Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to previous Answers I have given to similar Questions, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is making a statement on his visits to Ankara and Athens at the end of Questions today.

Mrs. Jeger: Is it not time that the Colonial Secretary had something to add to his previous Answers? Is he not aware that there is a distinct responsibility upon him, as distinct from that carried by his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, and that the House must expect to hear something from him very soon?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. and learned Friend and I share responsibility and both hold the same view.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate into what an impossible situation he is putting Sir Hugh Foot? If the deadlock continues much longer, will it not be time for the right hon. Gentleman to consider his own position in the Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I venture to think that I am more often and closely in touch with the Governor than is the hon. Member, and that is certainly not his view.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Probation Service

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what developments are planned for the Probation Service in Uganda.

Mr. Profumo: The long-term requirements for probation and after-care services will be assessed after consideration of the report of a committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice which is investigating juvenile delinquency. In the meantime, a proposal for an interim increase by seven in the establishment of probation and after-care assistants and officers is under consideration.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the provision for the probation service in Uganda in the last few years has been appallingly small and that expenditure on this very important service has been restricted to about £15,000 a year, whereas in one financial year alone new prisons were being constructed to the tune of nearly £500,000? Would it not be better for the probation service to be extended so that many hundreds of first offenders could receive probation treatment rather than be put into gaol?

Mr. Profumo: I imagine that the adequacy of the probation system will figure in the report of the committee on juvenile delinquency to which I have referred.

Proscribed Publications

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the list of proscribed publications in Uganda is too long to be easily memorised, and that, as the Uganda Government takes no steps beyond initial announcement in the Official Gazette to publicise the list, there is little opportunity for it to become more widely known; and, as there is a danger of injustice being done to individuals who unwittingly come into possession of proscribed publications, whether he will arrange for the list to be reduced to more reasonable proportions.

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend is in touch with the Governor about ensuring that those who might be concerned know which publications are proscribed.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the Minister aware that several people have been subject to charges over the possession of proscribed publications, and that many district commissioners and even policemen are unaware what publications are proscribed? Would he not ask those responsible to have an immediate look at this question, so that this list can be either reduced to reasonable proportions or abolished?

Mr. Profumo: We had better wait until we hear from the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO, SARAWAK AND BRUNEI

Federation Proposals

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what methods of procedure the inhabitants of British North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei will be consulted as to their views on the proposals for federation made by the Governors of British North Borneo and Sarawak and for the use of the coastal strips north of Jesselton for the training of British troops.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The people of North Borneo and Sarawak can express their views through their local councils, through unofficial members in the central Legislatures, in the Press, and in representative bodies such as Chambers of Commerce, as well as, of course, to the district officers. As to Brunei, Her Majesty's Government will at all times consult His Highness the Sultan as to the wishes of his people. The question of the use of coastal strips north of Jesselton is, of course, a North Borneo matter only.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Colonial Secretary answer that part of the Question where it is said that federation is under discussion? Does he think that we should renounce our responsibilities in that area by federation among these three territories?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no question of renouncing responsibilities. The purpose of the two broadcasts was to focus attention on the issues involved and to initiate public discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE AND HONG KONG

International Labour Organisation (Recommendations)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendation of the Asian Regional Conference of the International Labour Organisation in New Delhi in November, 1957, for the expansion of co-operatives and of systems of credit, improvement of the supply of raw materials and adequate training schemes in Singapore and Hong Kong, respectively.

Mr. Profumo: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gave to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 12th February.

Mr. Irving: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Singapore, while great progress is being made in organising industry, not so much progress is being made in agriculture and fisheries—[Interruption.] After that very minor local diversion, caused by the entrance of the Prime Minister, may I repeat—

An Hon. Member: Just a little domestic affair.

Mr. Irving: May I repeat that while in Singapore great developments have taken place and good progress has been made in industry and not so much progress has been made in agriculture and fisheries, in Hong Kong the reverse is the case? May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the extension of co-operative housing on the lines of the Civil Service co-operatives there, in order to deal with the homeless and the roof-top dwellers, particularly in the textile industry, which employs most of the workers in Hong Kong?

Mr. Profumo: I think that is a very much wider question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Labour Camps

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which colonial and trust territories, respectively, trade union leaders have the freedom to


visit employer-owned labour camps and places of employment and work for the purpose of spreading trade union propaganda and for the purpose of organising labour, as distinct from the freedom extended to labour officers.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As in this country, it is entirely within an employer's discretion whether he allows trade union organisers access to his property or places of employment. Comprehensive information on the practice of all employers in all territories is not available to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Trade Disputes (Picketing)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent it is the intention of the Government of Northern Rhodesia that offences connected with picketing in trades disputes will be dealt with in future under the penal code instead of under the Trade Disputes Act.

Mr. Profumo: Not at all; provision for picketing in trade disputes is made under Section 25 of the Trade Unions and Trade Disputes Ordinance, 1949.

Mr. Prentice: Has not the attention of the Minister been drawn to the Penal Code Amendment Order, 1957, which, among other things, raises the penalties for picketing and also extends the scope for prosecutions by making it unnecessary for the consent of the Attorney-General to be given? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on these changes, and does he not think they are liable to make relations in the territory much worse?

Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. That ordinance consolidated the penal code legislation to control the watching and besetting of premises other than in trade disputes.

Bancroft Mine (African Miners)

Mr. Pargiter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what special arrangements are being made by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to find alternative employment for the unemployed African miners from the Bancroft Mine; and what is the number of Africans who have applied to return

to their tribal homes and the number who reside in the area with their families.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Through the expanded Government employment exchange services, 500 vacancies at the Kariba hydro-electric project will be offered for Africans, including miners. The Northern Rhodesian Government's £2 million development plan for the two Northern Provinces will absorb others. Up to last Friday, 1,225 Africans had volunteered for immediate repatriation, and already 165, accompanied by 78 wives and 143 children, have been repatriated. At the end of January there were 4,209 Africans employed at The mine, of whom 2,430 had their families with them.

Mr. Pargiter: May I ask the Secretary of State particularly what is being done for those families who have now been uprooted from their tribal areas and settled in the mining area in the matter of finding them employment, or at least maintaining them while employment is being found?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Help is being given in a variety of ways. I will gladly write to the hon. Member and give him particulars, or have them published in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA

Civil Service (Appointments)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what categories of work in the civil services in Bermuda are reserved for white workers; upon whose recommendation appointments are made; and what public examinations or qualifying educational examinations are held before such appointments are made.

Mr. Profumo: There are no special categories of work in the Civil Service in Bermuda specially reserved for white or coloured individuals. The recommending authority depends on the category of appointments. The only qualifying examination held locally is for clerical posts and consists of a simple test of English, arithmetic and general knowledge.

Mr. Allaun: Is not the Minister aware that, in actual practice, this racial discrimination actually exists in Bermuda? Is


it not a fact that, although denied by Her Majesty's Government, the colour bar is there, and, what is worse, is existing in Government services?

Mr. Profumo: Where coloured individuals are capable of carrying out and are qualified to carry out the jobs concerned, no discrimination against them on grounds of colour is made at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (DEFENCE POLICY)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with the Government of Singapore before formulating the Government's defence policy in the East.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Defence policy in the East is a matter for Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The Governor of Singapore is naturally consulted on aspects of policy which directly affect the colony.

Mr. Rankin: May I first offer my sympathy to the Prime Minister on the bad news he got on his return, when he discovered that his party was at the bottom of the poll at Rochdale? May I further ask him if he agrees that, in view of the fact that our defence policy in the Far East is now centred on Singapore, the political foundations for that military setup ought to be on secure ground? Does he not realise that, within a year, perhaps at the next General Election, the People's Action Party will have swept the present Government of Singapore out of the road—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and has he thought about that possibility?

The Prime Minister: I can only say that the Government of Singapore at present have no responsibility for defence. Of course, when there are measures to be taken to implement defence policy which affect the responsibilities of elected Ministers in Singapore, they are consulted by the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY ESTABLISHMENT, DOUNREAY

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Prime Minister why local men of good character who have worked for several years at Dounreay are being discharged as

redundant while men from distant places where work is more readily available than in the Highlands are retained with subsistence allowances plus regular overtime, including double pay on Sundays; and, in view of the unemployment problem in Caithness and Sutherland, if he will take immediate steps to remedy this situation.

The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. The Atomic Energy Authority's contractors at Dounreay are discharging staff because the construction programme is nearing completion. It was only when skilled men were not available locally that men were recruited from distant places. I understand that local men are being discharged only when there is no longer suitable work for them. Wherever possible, alternative work on the operational side of the establishment is offered to them by the Authority. Men from distant places who are still retained on constructional work are mostly skilled men who could not be recruited locally.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not a fact that many citizens of Eire are employed at Dounreay upon labouring work which local men are well capable of doing?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that, but I think that the Answer that I have given—made upon the information given to me—accurately sets out the position. The constructional work is coming to an end and the Authority is trying to get the maximum local employment for the operational work. If there are any points in respect of which we can improve matters, however, I shall be very happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Woodburn: Do the contractors contact the Ministry of Labour in this matter? The Ministry could give them guidance upon the likelihood of local labour being available where there is a possibility of selection.

The Prime Minister: I feel sure that the Authority does so. It is the common practice between all large contractors and the Ministry.

Mr. Lipton: May we now take it that Questions relating to unemployment should be addressed to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I should not like to make such a pronouncement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTARCTICA

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, following his discussion with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand, he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to international control of Antarctica.

Mr. Younger: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his discussions with Commonwealth leaders regarding the question of sovereignty over Antarctica.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take to secure acceptance of the policy on the control of Antarctica which he discussed with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand.

The Prime Minister: Antarctica was one of the subjects which arose in the course of my talks with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand. We had a general exchange of views and discussed ways and means of ensuring that Antarctica did not remain a potential source of friction and conflict. I agreed with my colleagues on certain basic principles. These were the free development of science in Antarctica and the need to ensure that the area should not be used for military purposes.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister propose to enter into consultations with the Governments of the United States, the Soviet Union and other interested countries with a view to securing their co-operation in the future administration of this area?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The precise machinery for giving effect to the broad principles upon which I agreed with the two Prime Ministers is a matter for study and thought, and any further statement at this stage would be premature.

Mr. Younger: Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's first Answer that this agreement with other Prime Ministers does not extend to any discussion of a régime affecting sovereignty in this area? Does not he think that something of that kind is becoming necessary?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. So far as we discussed the

matter, it was within the general principles which I have tried to set out.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the only solution which makes sense today is for this area to be controlled under the United Nations or some form of world authority? In the light of all this miserable and defeatist justification of missile warfare, is it not worth while for Britain and the British Commonwealth, including Australia and New Zealand, to try to give a lead in this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but that is a very large question. The first stage is to get general agreement upon the principles to be applied.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. BULGANIN'S LETTER (PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Prime Minister what alterations were made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to his replies to Mr. Bulganin.

The Prime Minister: The members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have, of course, consulted each other about their replies to Mr. Bulganin's letters in accordance with their normal practice of discussing matters of common concern. But such discussions in the North Atlantic Council are naturally confidential.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at this juncture in history the Government should give a lead, and that they need not ask for the guidance of N.A.T.O. or anyone else? Has not the time come for the British people to decide? In his answer to this question, will he refrain from illustrating the evident, expounding upon the obvious and expatiating upon the commonplace, and give the British people a lead?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Member has got off his supplementary question so well; it must have taken quite a lot of learning. I hope that the House and the country feel that the replies we sent were steps in the direction in which we want to move. When we have allies and friends, it is wise to keep in good consultation with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S COMMONWEALTH TOUR

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement on his Commonwealth tour.

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to make a statement on my Commonwealth tour, but I shall make reference to this tomorrow during the debate on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Fiji Islanders wished that he had stayed there much longer? Why did he disappoint them?

The Prime Minister: Had I been to Fiji I might have fallen for the attractions of that delightful island—as I am told it is—but I did not go there. I felt that I should not deprive myself for more than six weeks of the pleasure of the hon. Member's supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he discussed Her Majesty's Government's decisions on nuclear tests and the strategy of nuclear warfare with the various Commonwealth Prime Ministers; and to what extent they expressed approval.

The Prime Minister: These questions were naturally touched on in the course of my discussions of world problems with my Commonwealth colleagues. These are, of course, matters on which there are differences of approach among the different Governments of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Hughes: But important questions were much more than touched upon. Can the Prime Minister tell us what advice was given him by Mr. Nehru upon the question of missiles and H-bombs?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Since I had the good fortune to be a guest in his house, I had several long and important discussions with the Indian Prime Minister, but I think that it would be quite wrong—and I do not think that he would wish it either—that I should make a statement about the friendly and private discussions I had with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — TENANCY, WOOD GREEN (TERMINATION)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Attorney-General (1) in what circumstances the agents to the Public Trustee were instructed to terminate the tenancy of Mrs. Lloyd, of 36, Parkhurst Road. Wood Green, on 6th October, 1958;
(2) what advice the Public Trustee obtained in valuing properties in his possession in Parkhurst Road, Wood Green, at £1,450.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): This information is not available. Not only do the statutory rules governing the Public Trustee's Office oblige him to observe strict secrecy about all trusts in course of administration by him, but he is not subject to the directions of any Minister in respect of them. His duty is to the beneficiaries of the trusts he administers, but any person aggrieved by an act, decision or omission of the Public Trustee may appeal to the High Court for relief.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Attorney-General aware that this lady has lived in the house for 16 years after suffering severely and losing her former home during the war-time bombing? Is he further aware that she has put this poor property into a very good state of repair, and that, however he is protected, is it not important that the Public Trustee should be setting a good example to bad landlords by negotiating with this tenant instead of turning her out into the street?

The Attorney-General: As I said the Public Trustee's duty is to the beneficiaries of the trusts he administers, and any person aggrieved by an act of his may appeal to the High Court for relief.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning I submitted a Question to you as a Private Notice Question about the proposed rocket range sites in my constituency. In view of the fact that the erection of these sites would appear to be imminent and that there has been no consultation locally, were I to submit that Question again tomorrow would you reconsider it?

Mr. Speaker: I will always consider anything submitted by hon. Members, but I did not take the view that this matter was sufficiently urgent to warrant a Private Notice Question.

ESTIMATES (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the Estimates for the coming financial year.
The Vote on Account will be published today, and will show the totals of the Civil Estimates and the Estimates for the Revenue Departments. The estimated expenditure on the defence programme has already been published in the White Paper on Defence Statistics.
The total net Estimates—excluding the Post Office Estimate, which covers self-balancing expenditure—amount to £4,260 million. They give effect to the determination of the Government to insist on the greatest economy practicable in public expenditure. The two largest elements in Government expenditure are defence and the social services. The White Papers on Defence have been published and we shall be debating them in the near future. Substantial economies have been obtained in this field.
As regards the social services, the Government intend to continue their policy of maintaining the standards of the services at the highest level commensurate with a sound economy. But the cost to the Exchequer of the social services as a whole has steadily increased year by year. The Estimates for the coming year show further material increases, in particular for education, for the health services and for National Insurance. Unless the increasing cost to the Exchequer of the social services is kept within bounds, their whole structure will undoubtedly be imperilled.
As the House will be aware, the National Insurance Fund will go into deficit for the first time in 1958–59. In that year, at any rate, we have decided that this deficit of about £14 million must be borne by the Exchequer. But, as the House will also be aware from the Gracious Speech, the Government are giving consideration to the whole question of the provision for old age. The

annual deficit under the present National Insurance Scheme is bound to increase. Figures already before the House show an estimated deficit of £235 million in 1964–65, only six years from now, as compared with £14 million next year. In the face of this, one of our objectives must clearly be to place the scheme on a sounder financial footing.
The increasing cost over the years of the health services has also caused the Government particular concern. When the National Health Service was instituted, the gross cost was expected to be £175 million, and the share borne by the Exchequer £126 million. This expectation was immediately falsified and the cost has risen greatly from the start. As a result, next financial year the gross cost is estimated at £740 million. On present arrangements the Exchequer's share of this would be £555 million. This is over four times as much in money terms, and nearly three times as much in real terms, as was originally contemplated, and represents a higher proportion of the total than was envisaged at the outset of the service.
The Government have decided that the whole of this vastly increased charge cannot be borne on the Exchequer. Accordingly, they propose that, with effect from the beginning of July next, the National Health Service contribution, which is a separate contribution collected with the insurance stamp, should be increased. The increase will be 6d. for men, 4d. for women, and 2d. for juveniles, with, in each case, an additional 2d. from the employer in the case of employed persons.

Mr. Harold Davies: A General Election!

Mr. Amory: A Ways and Means Resolution, on which the necessary Bill will be founded, is being tabled tonight. The additional yield from these increased contributions will be about £24 million next year and £32 million in a full year. On this basis the individual, and his employer, will still only be paying in stamp or charges just under 20 per cent. of the gross cost of the service, that being the figure which it was originally proposed that he should bear.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Chancellor aware that the news of this further increase in the weekly contribution will be received


with dismay everywhere, and that, coming as it does on top of substantial earlier increases, it will bring the total weekly payment by the individual employee to, I think, about 10s. a week? Is he aware that, by their very nature, these weekly contributions must fall most heavily on those least able to bear them? In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that last year, following a somewhat similar increase, there was a concession to Surtax payers of almost exactly the same amount in total yield, will he give us an assurance that he will not repeat that position in his Budget this year?

Mr. Amory: When this additional stamp has been allowed for, the proportion paid by the contributor, by his contribution and the charges together, will not exceed 20 per cent. and is not more that the percentage envisaged at the beginning of the scheme. In 1951, the right hon. Gentleman himself decided that a ceiling ought, in fairness, to be imposed, and he put one on the proportion of the gross cost to be met by the Exchequer. The total on which he decided was £400 million. The comparable total we are proposing here for next year is about £530 million. The proportion which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit for the Exchequer to bear represented 11 per cent. of the total cost; the proportion we are proposing for the next two years is 12½ per cent.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make what appears to be a pre-Budget speech today? Is this matter so urgent that a statement must be made today? I take it, Sir, that you will restrict questions to the Chancellor on this occasion because there is no Question before the House? Is not this an unusual practice?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question of opinion rather than a point of order. A Minister is entitled to make a statement if he deems it to be in the public interest to do so.

Dr. Summerskill: Before the right hon. Gentleman made his decision, the effect of which will fall most heavily on the poor, and will mean a weekly contribution of 10s. 1d. from every man in the country, did he scrutinise the nation's

drug bill, which is costing £50 million a year, and which many experienced people agree is composed in great part of expensive proprietary drugs? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to examine that before he goes forward with these increases?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also say that this will mean that there will be no increase in the prescription charge or the charge for any treatment in a doctor's surgery, as forecast by a Sunday newspaper?

Mr. Amory: The figure should, I think, be 9s. 11d. and not 10s. 1d., as the total of the contribution.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg pardon; 9s. 11d.

Mr. Amory: That is right.
As regards the question of the drug bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is keeping a very close watch on it in the National Health Service. In this case, we have had to decide. There were several alternatives. We could have cut standards, we could have cut the service and we could have increased the charges to those who are ill and in trouble. But we decided that on this occasion the right thing to do—and I believe that the House generally will approve of this—would be that the extra burden should be carried by the fit and able-bodied rather than by those who are in trouble.
As regards the other part of the right hon. Lady's question, the present proposal is as I have described it today.

Mr. Turton: What proportion does the proposed contribution of 9s. 11d. bear to the average weekly earnings, and how does that proportion compare with the proportion in the Federal German Republic, in France and in Italy?

Mr. Amory: I could not give that information to my right hon. Friend without notice. If he will put down the question, and the information is available to me, I will let him have it.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Chancellor find out how much additionally it will cost local authorities for the employees' own contributions and how much difference it will make to them in the rates


they will have to charge and in supplementation, during the course of the financial year? As the Government have requested local authorities to cut their expenditure as low as they possibly can, may I ask whether the Chancellor is entitled to put this added burden on to the ratepayers and the local authorities to meet the additional contribution that he is expecting?

Mr. Amory: That is rather an indirect question for information which I cannot give today. If the hon. Lady will put the question down I will give her the best answer I can as to the proportion of cost falling on local authorities. I do believe that the proportion of 20 per cent. of the gross cost falling on the contributor himself is not an unfair proportion.

Sir K. Joseph: If the expanding services and the cost of the National Health Service make necessary a further financial contribution, will not most people judge that it is far fairer that those who are of working age and well should bear the burden rather than those who are ill or retired?

Mr. Amory: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In approving these new charges, has the right hon. Gentleman considered this aspect of the matter? The fiat rate contribution goes up to 9s. 11d., which is the contribution for every worker of 18 years of age and over, and the only person who now pays the contribution in full is the person who does not earn enough to pay Income Tax? Is it not, therefore, clear that this increase will mean a substantial reduction in the standard of living of all the lower-paid workers? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that because of this reduction in the standard of living, compared with others who get a part of the contribution counted against Income Tax, it is a very big extra burden put upon the lower-paid people?

Mr. Amory: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should keep the matter in perspective. He talks about this being a very substantial burden; it is 6d. a week.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend say how the proportion between the contribution and the average wage compares

with the proportion at the time the scheme was initiated?

Mr. Amory: I cannot give that information without notice.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that the Government are still considering further charges in the Health Service? If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer, can the Minister of Health, for once, answer for himself in the matter? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures of proportion of the national income taken by expenditure on the National Health Service, as compared with the last couple of years?

Mr. Amory: I thought I had explained that we chose this method of increasing the personal contribution as an alternative in preference to the other alternatives I mentioned; and in mentioning those other alternatives I did include increasing the charges, so that at present we have no proposal for increasing the charges.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, after these new increases in taxation, the lowest-paid wage earner will be paying in Income Tax and National Insurance contribution together a higher proportion of his income than many people with higher incomes? How can he justify that position?

Mr. Amory: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Dame Irene Ward: When this increased charge comes into operation can the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board look for a better standard of service, in view of the fact that in some ways we are still much below the national average? If there is to be a payment over the whole community, is it not fair that if we bear our share of the burden we should have an equally good service?

Mr. Amory: I am sure that I can leave that matter with confidence in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. May I follow up the point which I raised with you a little while ago, Mr. Speaker? In many ways, hon. Members put Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in anticipation of his Budget statement and he always refuses to


answer and says that he must not anticipate his Budget. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing today is something by way of imposing increased taxation in advance of his Budget, although you have ruled that it is in order for him to make a statement like this. Is there anything you can do to discourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making a statement like this today, which is quite out of perspective in relation to his Budget statement?

Mr. Speaker: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that this is to be the subject of a separate Bill and not a matter for the Budget, and that a Ways and Means Resolution is being tabled for tonight. That is what he said. There will, therefore, be an opportunity of debating the matter as a separate issue when the Ways and Means Resolution comes before the Committee of Ways and Means, and also on the Bill, which will no doubt be founded on the Financial Resolution, if the House accepts it.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS, NAVAL AIR ESTABLISHMENTS AND HOME COMMANDS

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the future of the Royal dockyards, naval air establishments, and the structure of the Home Commands
Her Majesty's Government have decided, with great regret, that the Nore Command should be abolished; and that Sheerness and Portland Dockyards, the Aircraft Repair Yard, Donibristle, and five other air establishments in the United Kingdom, should be closed.
The decline in naval repair work resulting from the planned reductions in the Fleet will not require the closure of any other dockyard in the United Kingdom. Singapore and Gibraltar Dockyards will be retained. The future of Malta Dockyard is still under consideration.
The Nore Command will be abolished by April, 1961, and its remaining functions transferred to other authorities. At Sheerness, the dockyard will run down gradually, closing in April, 1960. At Chatham, the dockyard will be retained;

but the barracks and other naval establishments will be closed—also by April, 1961.
At Portland, the dockyard will be reduced by July, 1959. The naval base will be retained. My noble Friend has considered with particular care the final stage of the concentration at Portland of underwater research and development and has decided that the Torpedo Experimental Establishment must be transferred there from Greenock in order to achieve the closest co-ordination in the development of underwater weapons. This move will take place towards the end of 1959.
The tasks of the Home Air Command will be concentrated in larger groups at fewer bases. The Aircraft Repair Yard at Donibristle will be closed by the end of 1959. The Royal Naval Air Stations at Ford, Bramcote and Eglinton will also be closed in about a year's time. The Air Station at Brawdy, which will be kept in reserve and the Air Electrical School at Worthy Down will close later.
I am well aware of what these decisions will mean for Chatham men of the Royal Navy and many Fleet Air Arm ratings, and for the civilian employees of the establishments to be closed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service will arrange as necessary to open special employment offices inside these establishments before discharges begin. My noble Friend will also be in touch with the Northern Ireland Minister of Labour and National Insurance. With the assistance of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, everything possible will be done to bring the facilities which will be available to the notice of suitable industrial interests. We shall enter into consultation immediately with the staff associations and trade unions.
Details of these plans and of their effects are included in my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates, which will be available in the Vote Office later this afternoon.
The result of the reorganisation will be a total reduction of about 2,700 naval posts ashore and of over 7,000 civilian posts. Thus, more men will be available to serve at sea, and an annual saving of about £7 million will be achieved. The Government are confident that, although


some hardship will be unavoidable, all those in the Naval Service will appreciate the necessity for these drastic measures for the purpose of maintaining the strength of the sea-going Fleet.

Mr. Steele: I am sure the House will appreciate that this is a statement of grave importance to the livelihood of the many men concerned. We are rather suspicious that on many of these matters the Ministry of Defence is much more concerned with cuts in numbers than the efficiency of the Services.
I have been looking at the Navy Estimates for last year and I found that practically no new naval construction was taking place in naval dockyards. It seems to me that at a time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech".]—I want to put this point to the Civil Lord. It seems to me that at the time when private yards have full order books, and are finding difficulty in meeting their commitments and getting new orders because of late delivery dates, very little new construction is taking place in the naval dockyards. Could the hon. Gentleman say what is the actual percentage of new construction of ships in naval dockyards?
May I also ask what consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour really means? With the numbers affected, particularly in Sheerness, where no alternative employment is available, this is a major operation. Surely some organisation should be set up to ensure that something is done? I want to know what plan of action the Admiralty has in this matter.
Finally, may I ask this? This question of the transfer of the Greenock establishment is difficult to understand, and will require a much more satisfactory explanation than the mere bald statement we have had today. Is the Civil Lord aware—

Sir R. Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to make a speech from the Opposition Front Bench on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: It is usual to put these things in an interrogatory form. I thought that it might have been done with a little ingenuity by the hon. Member. If Ministers make statements they must expect a certain amount of questioning on them.

Mr. Steele: I am trying to be as brief as possible, because I am sure that the House wants to welcome the new Member for Rochdale.
In view of the fact that the Admiralty first said that the trouble in Greenock was the provision of houses, and when local authorities indicated that they were prepared to supply houses the Admiralty then said it was a question of economy, has not the whole thing been suspicious from the very start? Can the Civil Lord give us a full explanation of what is happening?

Mr. Galbraith: The present amount of new construction work in the dockyards is about 5 per cent. of the total and amounts approximately to £·6 million. Over the next few years we intend to increase that to about £1·75 million, but I must point out that the prime purpose of the dockyards is not to build ships but to repair them.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement about Eglinton, however necessary, will cause dismay in Northern Ireland, where there is very severe unemployment? Can he say how many men will be thrown out of work there? Can he give an absolute assurance that everything possible will be done to find them alternative work?

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Would it not be advisable to allow the Minister to answer the questions put by us?

Mr. Speaker: I thought he had answered them, but if I was too quick I am sorry.

Mr. Galbraith: We are particularly sorry to have to close Eglinton, because of unemployment difficulties in the area. We anticipate that about 300 men will be discharged by wastage and in other ways. Unfortunately, because of the nature of Eglinton Airfield and reductions in the Fleet Air Arm, it was impossible to avoid closing that station.

Mr. Woodburn: What about Greenock?

Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. I understood the Civil Lord to be answering a question before the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) rose. My hon. Friend


the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) had asked a number of questions, particularly about consultations with the Board of Trade. I understood that the Civil Lord was in process of answering those questions when you called the hon. Member for Londonderry.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is setting up offices in all these establishments to help to find jobs for the men who are discharged. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is also doing everything he can to bring to the notice of suitable industrial and commercial concerns facilities which will now be available.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while we shall always applaud any effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government to reduce expenditure—which, by the way, is consistent with the policy of the Labour Party—we do not believe the Government have gone far enough and we shall welcome further steps in this desirable direction? Will he say whether, in promoting this new scheme of reduction in personnel and the like, the Government have taken appropriate measures to ensure that the men being displaced in various parts of the United Kingdom will be absorbed in other occupations?

Mr. Galbraith: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure that these men find jobs.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement of these measures will be received with great satisfaction—

Mr. Ross: Not in Greenock.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: —and that there is evidence of the shift of expenditure from the tail to the teeth of the Royal Navy? Is he aware that all those who have the best interests of the Navy at heart will welcome that?

Mr. Bottomley: May I assume that the naval personnel based on Chatham will find employment elsewhere? If that is so, will the vacated buildings be available for local authorities, or for industrial purposes? I have in mind the Royal

Marine Barracks, which have been lying empty and derelict for six years. How many civilian personnel will be dismissed from Chatham?

Mr. Galbraith: We anticipate that about 500 non-established personnel in establishments in the Chatham area will be discharged. Any buildings that we do not require we shall, of course, dispose of.

Mr. Burden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision to close the Nore establishment will be very much regretted because of the long, traditional connections it has with the Medway towns, but that the decision to continue to keep the Chatham Dockyard open will be received with great relief in the Medway towns, in view of the fact that for a long time it has been stated that it was the Government's intention to close it?
I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) in asking my hon. Friend to ensure that everything possible will be done, in view of this action, to extend industrial activities in the Medway towns.

Mr. P. Wells: Is the Civil Lord aware that this decision will be received with dismay in Sheerness, and with a feeling of callous betrayal? Will he say what action the Government will take to prevent the Isle of Sheppey becoming a distressed area?

Mr. Galbraith: I really cannot accept that it has been a betrayal at all. We have spent a great deal of time in trying to adjust the shore side of the Navy, and the dockyards in particular, to the reduced size of the Fleet.
I said earlier that my two right hon. Friends will do everything they possibly can to maintain employment in that area.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the Civil Lord confirm that the decision to transfer the Torpedo Experimental Establishment from Greenock is based not on grounds of economy, but on highly contentious technical arguments in naval circles themselves? Is he aware that as there are about 2,500 unemployed already in Greenock many of the Admiralty employees who are to be sacked as a result of this transfer will have a very hard task in finding work, and that representations will be made to the Government to bring industry to my town now?

Mr. Galbraith: As I have said, my noble Friend and myself, as we both come from the West Coast of Scotland, were very sorry to have to come to this decision. The overriding reason, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, was not one of finance, but of the necessity to achieve greater technical and scientific efficiency by concentrating all underwater development in one part of the country.

CYPRUS

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a short statement—

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us how many more statements we are to have, and whether there is any limit on the tolerance of the House in this matter—whether there be three or 30?

Mr. Speaker: I can answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There are no more statements to follow. The second part is a matter for the House.

Mr. Lloyd: I wish to make a short statement on my recent discussions with the Turkish and Greek Governments about Cyprus.
The House is familiar with the main factors of the situation affecting the three Governments. I sought, during my visits, to establish common ground on which to base a settlement which would also be acceptable to Greek and Turkish Cypriots. I have come back from these talks with the firm belief that in spite of all the difficulties this is possible. Further discussions are necessary and I propose to start them urgently. In the meantime, all measures necessary to preserve law and order will be taken.
I should add that I was greatly helped in Ankara and Athens by the presence and advice of the Governor of Cyprus.

Mr. Bevan: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that while we on this side welcome the fact that urgent discussions are to take place, nevertheless we cannot exempt the Government from a very large share of the responsibility for the deterioration

of the situation in Cyprus over a number of years? Will he tell us what form these discussions are to take, and whether he has any idea when he will be able to make a further statement?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it would be unwise for me to say today exactly what will be the nature of the further discussions, because there are wider issues. I do promise the House, however, that they will be undertaken with extreme urgency, and that the House will be kept informed.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, within recent months particularly, we on this side have exercised a very great deal of restraint on this matter? We have not asked for debates when we could have done so on several occasions. Is it not necessary, for the sake of peace on the island, that some idea should be given as to the form the discussions are taking, because we do not want another outbreak of violence?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman. I am sure, is aware of the facts. The new Governor was appointed early in December. He spent some time in the island, and then came back to report. Since that time, we have been engaged in the discussions with the two Governments concerned. As I have said, I would ask the tolerance of the House on this matter [Interruption.]—continued tolerance, if hon. Members like—because I think that, despite all the difficulties, there is a chance of finding common ground. I should have thought that all quarters of the House would have liked that.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While we are grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend that these further discussions are to be conducted urgently, could we have, perhaps, some indication of when they are likely to be completed, having regard to the possible effects of continued uncertainty on our soldiers and administrators, and on all our fellow subjects in Cyprus? Have not recent events on the frontiers of Egypt and the Sudan confirmed the necessity of fully and resolutely maintaining the British position in the island?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary to carry out these discussions as urgently as possible. I think that most people would feel that


time, in a sense, is running against those who favour moderate solutions. Therefore, speed is very necessary.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that should, in the last analysis, these discussions fail, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make clear that they are ready to make their own policy, and to stand by it?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that renewed violence by either community in Cyprus could sabotage these very delicate negotiations, and that it will be met by the full strength of our security forces, as the people of Cyprus are thoroughly "fed up" with terrorists?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is necessary, in the interests of both communities in Cyprus and of a peaceful settlement, that law and order should be preserved.

Mr. Bevan: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that provocative supplementaries are coming from that side of the House?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

John McCann, esquire, for Rochdale.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the Imperial Institute, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenses incurred by the Trustees of the Commonwealth Institute, being expenses which under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session are to be defrayed by the Minister of Education; and
(ii) of any expenses incurred by the said Minister in connection with the Commonwealth Institute.

except in so far as any such expenses are defrayed out of the income of the Endowment Fund maintained by the said Trustees or out of sums received by the said Minister for the purposes of the Commonwealth Institute or otherwise in the exercise of his powers and duties under the Imperial Institute Act, 1925;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the said Minister in consequence of an exercise of the powers conferred on him by the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS

[11th February]

RECREATIONAL CHARITIES

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to declare charitable under the law of England and Wales the provision in the interests of social welfare of facilities for recreation or other leisure time occupation, to make similar provision as to certain trusts heretofore established for carrying out social welfare activities within the meaning of the Miners' Welfare Act, 1952, to enable laws for corresponding purposes to be passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise any incidental charge to income tax which that Act may impose on persons making payments to trusts of any description which is,


in England and Wales, to be treated as charitable under that Act (including any such charge for a past year of assessment).

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

RECREATIONAL CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(GENERAL PROVISION AS TO RECREATIONAL AND SIMILAR TRUSTS, ETC.)

4.13 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment to be called is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), in page 1, line 9. I think it might he for the convenience of the Committee if with it were discussed the Amendment in page 1, line 8, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), the Amendments in page 1, line 16, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East, and the Amendment in page 2, line 11, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich, South.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end to insert:
and are not provided for profit".
Before explaining the purpose of the Amendment, I should like to make one general observation which I hope may be helpful. It has been a matter of considerable concern to a number of hon. Members on this side, a number of people in legal circles outside, and a number of organisations, such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, that all the stages of this Bill are to be taken this afternoon only a few days after the Second Reading. I hope that before we go into too great detail it may be possible to have at an early stage of our deliberations an assurance from the Government that they will defer the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill until later, so that, if it is not possible to accept the precise terms of some

of the Amendments now on the Order Paper, they can at least be carefully considered before Report stage, together with any others which may be brought forward; also that bodies like the Association of Municipal Corporations, who have made representations on this subject since Second Reading, shall have an opportunity to deal with that aspect of the Bill which appears to impinge upon the activities of the Pritchard Committee which is now considering the implications of Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955.
4.15 p.m.
The first Amendment, which is designed to add the words "and are not provided for profit" to Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, has to be considered in the light of the provisions of Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. Section 8 of that Act gives a measure of relief from rates to organisations which are charitable or otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare provided that they are not established or conducted for profit.
There is no reference in the Bill, either in respect of Clause 1 (1) or Clause 1 (3), to profit. I raised on Second Reading the hypothetical case of the provision of a coffee bar with rock 'n' roll facilities for young people which might be established or conducted for profit. The cases which have come forward under Section 8 show that a distinction can be made between functions conducted for private profit and those conducted for the profit of the organisation in order that proceeds could be ploughed back to advance other objects of the organisation. It would be very helpful if the Joint Under-Secretary of State could explain why it is that there is no reference to profit anywhere in the Bill, although it is expressly provided for in Section 8 of the 1955 Act.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) has asked me to give some indication about the later stages of the Bill. The question of when the Report and Committee stages are taken will depend upon the progress we make today with the Committee stage and upon the points raised


and whether we find it necessary to consider any further point. Obviously, if it should be necessary to do that we would not ask the House to take the Report stage today.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order. If none of these Amendments are made, surely there will not be a Report stage.

The Chairman: I think it is very likely that there will be one, because the very last Amendment on the Notice Paper, in page 4, line 16, is a Government Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If that Amendment is made, will there have to be a Report stage?

The Chairman: There will, but it may be taken forthwith if no Amendments are put down.

Mr. Renton: I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that this Bill was first introduced in the House of Lords. It passed through all its stages in the Lords, and the opportunity was taken for discussion there, especially upon one difficult point. The proceedings in another place naturally attracted a good deal of publicity and received the attention especially, I would have thought, of those people outside Parliament who are interested in the subject matter of the Bill.
I am sure that my hon. Friend and, indeed, the Committee will agree that this is a Bill for which there is a great public demand. It is a Bill which removes doubt, and the sooner the doubts are removed by the Bill's being given the Royal Assent the happier so many people will be. I do not say that that is any reason for rushing the Bill, but it means that any help the Committee feels it can give the Government in expediting its progress will be greatly appreciated.
With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, I do not think it is necessary to have his Amendment. My hon. Friend asked me to say why it was that the question of non-profit making activities was specifically referred to in the 1955 Act and why it should not be necessary in this Bill. It would clearly be out of order for me to say why it was put in the 1955 Act, but I will attempt to explain why it is not necessary in the Bill before us.
If my hon. Friend will turn to Clause 3 (1), he will find that it provides—
Nothing in this Act shall be taken to restrict the purposes which are to be regarded as charitable independently of this Act.
There is a general proviso in the light of which all the provisions of the Bill must be read. Further, in Clause 1 (1), which is the subsection we are now discussing and the principal operative provision of the Bill, we find that there is a proviso added which says that
nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the principle that a trust or institution to be charitable must be for the public benefit.
If it is for the public benefit, it follows, I think, with the law of charities in the background, that it cannot be operated for profit.
There is one apparent but not real exception to that proposition, which is that even a purely charitable organisation may from time to time, as part of its recreational activities, organise such a thing as a dance or a whist drive and make a casual profit in doing so, the funds from that profit being immediately turned to the charitable purpose of the organisation. But that does not make it into a profit-making organisation. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted, it might have the most unfortunate result of preventing a charity from making a casual profit of that kind on its recreational activities.
Although we appreciate my hon. Friend's thoughtfulness in putting down the Amendment, I must, for the reasons I have expressed, advise the Committee that it is not an Amendment we should accept.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I understand that my hon. and learned Friend's objection to the Amendment is that the law is quite clear in the sense of the Amendment without it, and that it would be otiose. That was, I think, his main objection. His second objection was that, if it were incorporated into the Bill, it might limit the making of a temporary profit by a charity even though that profit was not to be distributed. The second objection seems to me to be a good one, but one which the draftsmen available to the Government could surely put right quite easily before the next stage.
As to my hon. and learned Friend's first objection, is it quite clear that, as amending the law of charities, the Bill excludes any profit-making concern? I quite agree that but for the Bill that would be so, but the two passages he referred to as showing that it is still the case do not strike me in that way at all. Clause 3 (1) provides:
Nothing in this Act shall be taken to restrict the purposes which are to be regarded as charitable independently of this Act.
That, of course, does not in any way affect any additional bodies which are to be made charitable by reason of the Bill, which is what we are concerned with primarily in the Amendment. Secondly, my hon. and learned Friend called attention to the proviso to Clause 1 (1):
Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the principle that a trust or institution to be charitable must be for the public benefit.
It is surely possible to argue with a good deal of force that there are many activities in the provision of goods and services of all sorts, to the advantage of the public, which are undertaken with the profit motive in the background. Indeed, it is hard to hear from our Front Bench that there is in anyone's mind any suggestion that, because something is for the public benefit, that means that it cannot be profit-making as well.
I suggest, therefore, that there may be some doubt here. If my hon. and learned Friend is relying entirely on the old law of charities, by which undoubtedly the profit-making element in the wide sense is excluded, I hope that he will look again to see that there is nothing in this Bill which has upset that, and that all the previous law, when read together with this, will make it quite clear that profit-making bodies in the full sense of the word are not to have the very considerable advantages of tax exemption, rate exemption, stamp exemption and all the rest which are today so valuable.

Sir Lionel Heald: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take this matter quite seriously. This is a very important Bill, and there is a feeling that there is a danger of it being rather rushed. This seems to be an important point. After all, we have not so far been given any legal authority for the view that there is nothing in the point,

and I rather hope that the Government will not take it too easily.
There are many points in the Bill which have caused a good deal of concern, and I think that some of us were rather surprised to hear my hon. and learned Friend say, in effect, that because there had apparently, been no great public clamour about it, we need not worry over much. The House of Commons is the proper place to raise these things, and we are raising them today. As my hon. and learned Friend will see, a number of hon. Members have points to raise by way of Amendment or otherwise. I hope that we may have a little more coherent explanation on the point.

Mr. Renton: In answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I should have thought that it was hardly necessary for him to suggest that we are not taking the matter seriously. We certainly are, and we have done all along. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I will endeavour to give the matter such skilful and patient consideration as we can command.

Mr. Rippon: May we take it that, if the Government are to give such consideration as they feel these Amendments demand, they are now minded, in view of the representations which have been made, to defer the Report stage so that they can do just that?

Mr. Renton: Our minds are open on that point throughout the Committee stage. I suggest that, before my hon. Friend expresses any kind of suffering, he should wait and see how the Committee stage goes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) asked whether the Bill as drafted excludes profit making concerns. He pointed out that there are various kinds of profit making concern in the widest sense which perform public services in the widest sense. The answer is that the Bill does so exclude them, and there is no doubt whatever about it. Clause 1 (1), and, in particular, the proviso, is here dealing with a trust or institution which is charitable and says that such a trust or institution must be for the public benefit, which, ipso facto excludes profit making.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: May I instance the case of a nationalised undertaking? I do not wish to introduce a controversial element here, but it could be argued that a nationalised board was for the public benefit; indeed, I think that it would be difficult to say that it was not. If my hon. and learned Friend's argument were to prevail, then it could be said that the activities of a public board would be made charitable simply because it contributed to some charitable body. It is opening it very wide indeed.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: As I have said, there is a vast number of organisations and institutions, and some trusts, which are for the public benefit, but that does not make them into charitable trusts. One of the tests of a charitable trust is laid down here, and it is well known to my hon. Friend, who is a Chancery lawyer, which I admit I am not, that the public benefit test must, where appropriate, be satisfied. To say that every single kind of publicly provided service should, therefore, be regarded as a charitable trust because a kind of public service is provided is just stretching the conception of "charity" beyond all imagination.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Perhaps I might take the matter a little further. My hon. and learned Friend has read the two halves of subsection (1) disjunctively. I agree that if one reads the proviso by itself there is nothing in the Bill which would make a public board a charity, but if one reads the two halves together—and one has to do so—a public board may very well, to use of the words of the first half,
assist in the provision of, facilities …
which are made charitable by the Bill. The effect of the subsection would be that because the public board had assisted in the provision of the facilities its activities generally might be regarded as of a charitable character so as to exclude it, for example, from the incidence of Income Tax.
It seems to me that, although there is no difference of opinion in the Committee as to what ought to be done, there is a real doubt about the meaning of the subsection, and that doubt has not been cleared up by my hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I really do not share my hon. Friend's doubts. With great respect to him, I think he must be under some slight misapprehension about the purpose of the proviso.
The first part of the subsection to which he has drawn attention—I emphasise this—is the part which is designed, subject to the powers in subsections (2) and (3), to restore the position to what it was before the Baddeley decision, and to take it no further. It would be difficult to fit a nationalised body into the scope of "charities" before the Baddeley decision.
My hon. Friend paid a great deal of attention to the proviso, but the proviso is there because we thought that it was necessary to make sure that the scope of the first part of subsection (1) was not too wide, not so wide that it would let in things which before the Baddeley case would not have been regarded as charitable. Therefore, the proviso is put in negative fashion:
… nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the principle that a trust or institution to be charitable must be for the public benefit.
Obviously, if we did not have the proviso there—here my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) is right—we might have something which came within the first subsection and yet was not for the public benefit.
I have listened carefully to all that my hon. and learned Friend said in explaining the matter and to what has been said in criticism of it, and I can assure my hon. Friend—I need not, perhaps, go into detail about this—that the drafting of the Bill has involved months of consideration. I do not suggest that it is not capable of improvement, because any draft is, but it was—I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with this, because he has had great experience of drafting—an extremely difficult thing to accomplish the task that we set out to perform, namely to restore the position to what it was before the Baddeley case without in any way enlarging the field of "charity". We believe that we have done that, and, on the basis of the best advice that we can get, we do not consider that there is any need to make any further alteration to the provision on the lines of that


proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon).
Indeed, for the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend in replying initially, the insertion of the words:
and are not provided for profit
would, in fact, operate to be restrictive of the proper activities of a charitable institution. For that reason, we cannot accept the Amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised the matter, because we certainly do not want to overlook anything in this difficult field which might give rise to problems hereafter.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Perhaps it will help the discussion if I say that when I first looked at the Amendment I was very much attracted by it; but, on reflection, I felt that it was wrong to look at the Bill as if it were in complete isolation from all that we know about the law relating to charity. That is to say, if all the courts had to do was to construe the Clauses of the Bill with nothing else at all to help them, I could see that there would be some substance in the Amendment.
It seems to me that the courts will not be in that position at all. In any case which arises, once the question is raised whether a trust or institution is or is not a charity a whole range of statutes and decisions going back many hundreds of years will have to be considered, among them the Baddeley case. I should say that it will be absolutely clear to the judiciary, not from what we say in the House of Commons—because that is not a matter which will influence it—but from the Bill itself that this is part of the law of charity and, as it were, the last little bit that we are putting on at the present moment. If the matter is viewed with that background, it must be absolutely clear that an organisation existing purely for the purpose of making profit would not have a chance of being considered as a charity.
The Opposition will certainly support the Government in the attitude which they have taken towards the Amendment. At the same time, I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) for having brought this important matter forward.

Sir L. Heald: I am a little puzzled by what the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) says. I should like to defer to his legal knowledge in these matters, but when he says that the Clause has to be read subject to all the previous legal decisions, including the Baddeley case, I am rather disturbed. I thought that today in Parliament we were deciding what the law shall be, and I would hope that nobody in the future will say, "That is what the House of Commons has said, but we can now go back to the previous legal decisions and say that that is not what the House of Commons meant at all."
I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the words:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be and be deemed always to have been charitable to provide …
certain things. All the courts are concerned with is whether those words are complied with or not. It is no good our saying that in another case the words do not mean what they say. We must put in the Measure words which will remove any doubts so that it will not be necessary to have another case going to the House of Lords. That is one of the matters with which a great many of us, not only in the House but outside, are concerned. The result of the Bill may very well be that, instead of settling the law once and for all, it will merely encourage another case on the Baddeley lines to come to the House of Lords, which some people may think quite advantageous but which probably would not be desirable in the public interest.

Mr. Rippon: Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to say that I believe that the discussion we have had on it shows that there should be a "divine pause". The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had some scathing remarks to make the other day about the divine pause and the whole wasteful apparatus of another place but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has said, it is the House of Commons that is making the law, and we are concerned at the extremely short interval in which to frame Amendments which has elapsed between the Second Schedule and this debate. We should very much hope that there will be a further opportunity for the matter to be considered, inside and


outside the House of Commons, so that we can be absolutely sure at the end that we have done our duty and have drafted the Bill in as clear and precise terms as we are capable of doing as a legislative assembly.

The Attorney-General: The Bill has been published for a considerable time. It has been through the House of Lords and my hon. Friend could have been preparing Amendments from the time of its publication to the House of Commons. I have heard what my hon. Friend has said more than once about the need for an interval, but I ask him to bear in mind that there are a number of charities, or at least bodies which were treated as charities before the Baddeley decision of 1955, which have been anxiously awaiting legislation of this kind. We shall, of course, consider carefully any arguments which hon. Members advance and I hope that we shall make the Bill as good a Measure as can be, but I should like to see it, after this long interval, reach the Statute Book as soon as possible. I would ask my hon. Friend, therefore, not to press for any delay until we have seen how the Committee stage goes and how far we can agree on these matters.

Mr. Rippon: The Baddeley decision, of course, was given three years ago, and the charities have been waiting three years for the issue to be resolved. We are all anxious that it should be, but I cannot believe that it would do any great harm if we waited another month or so, particularly bearing in mind that these charities are imperilled only by the Inland Revenue which is not likely to move until Parliament has moved. However, in view of the helpful suggestions made by the Attorney-General and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "of", to insert "directly".
The Amendment is designed to clarify, if possible, the definition of social welfare in Clause 1 (2) and to insert in subsection (2, a) the word "directly" so that it would read:

the facilities are provided with the object of directly improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended. …
There has been a good deal of discussion in the courts on what is meant by "social welfare", which is the expression used in Section 8 of the 1955 Act. There is no attempt in that Section to define social welfare, but the courts have been doing their best to ascertain what Parliament intended on that occasion and there has been a good deal of discussion on this question of directly or indirectly improving the conditions of life.
One view is fairly summarised by Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry in the case of Berry v. St. Marylebone Borough Council, in which he said:
It would appear to me virtually impossible to attempt a definition of this phrase, but I am inclined to agree with counsel for the defendants that one must discover in the operation of the undertaking some direct impact upon the proposed beneficiary, his example being a social centre established in Liverpool with a view to encouraging better relations among the various races which are to be found from time to time in that great port. While regarding it as no more than an indication and not a definition a what would properly be regarded as the content of the phrase 'social welfare,' I would be content to adopt the sentence which counsel for the defendants put forward in argument, viz., the provision of benefits or facilities which tend directly to improve the health and condition of life of the class of persons concerned.
That definition was broadly accepted in the Court of Appeal.
4.45 p.m.
This was followed by Lord Justice Parker, in another case, in which he said:
Unless, therefore, some restriction can be implied from the context, we should have thought that the provision of benefits which tends directly to improve the health or conditions of life of individuals comes prima facie within the expression 'social welfare'.
The courts have, under Section 8 of the 1955 Act, made this distinction in a number of cases.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be aware of the decision which the courts reached in the recent case concerning the General Nursing Council, part of whose activities was directed to maintaining a register of nurses. It was held that that part of its objects, not being directly concerned with the benefit of individuals, did not fall within the context of a charitable or social welfare. The sort of case that


comes to mind under this provision is that where recreational facilities are provided for nurses. It might be argued that the infirm and disabled are indirectly benefited if recreational facilities are provided for nurses, because those would raise the status, health and efficiency of nursing. But that would be a rather different decision from that which the court arrived at in the case of the General Nursing Council.
It may be that my right hon. Friend is quite happy that it is sufficient if facilities should be provided with the object of directly or indirectly improving the conditions of life, but it seems to me that it would be preferable if we had this provision in clear terms and that it should either be, as the Amendment suggests, "directly improve" or, if that is not what is intended, that we should have the words,
… directly or indirectly improve the conditions of life …

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), in a most interesting argument, has put forward a matter which we feel would give rise to some difficulty. I would remind the Committee that Clause 1 (2) does not define social welfare but prescribes certain minimum conditions which must be fulfilled before the court can decide that the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare.
In support of his argument that the facilities should be provided with the object of directly improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom they are primarily intended, my hon. Friend quoted the dictum of Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry in the St. Marylebone case, when the learned judge was considering social welfare in a much wider context. He was considering the general application of social welfare, but, of course, here the conception of social welfare is relevant only in the narrower sense that it has a bearing on whether or not a charity is a recreational charity.
If we were to put the word "directly" in the place where my hon. Friend suggests, it would have the following results. First, it would oblige the courts to find some special meaning for it. Secondly, it would oblige the courts to give some special effect to that meaning. Thirdly, it might give rise to difficulties of definition in the great variety of circumstances

in which it would have to be considered. Fourthly, and this is the greatest difficulty I see, it would lead to extreme difficulties of proof.
In other words, those who wished to establish that there was a recreational charity within the meaning of this Bill might very well be hard put to it to show that the facilities were provided with the object of directly improving conditions of life. Therefore, the addition of the word "directly" would narrow the scope of the Bill, and might well result in some potential recreational charities being held not to be recreational charities. We think that would be a pity and would to some extent diminish the purposes of the Bill.
I hope my hon. Friend will endeavour to see the matter in that light and perhaps not press his Amendment.

Mr. Rippon: I say straight away that I am afraid that I cannot accept that explanation. In so far as the courts have been directing their attention specifically to this point, if we say nothing the courts, in construing the provision, will have to decide whether the House of Commons meant "directly improving the conditions of life" or whether it meant to refer to "objects which directly or indirectly …".
If my hon. and learned Friend and the Government wish to widen the scope, or to make clear that the scope is wide enough, I would not raise any objection to "directly or indirectly improving …". But what will be the position of the organisation which provides recreational facilities for nurses? Will it be in or will it be out? As things stand it must be a matter of decision for the courts because, on the face of it, it can only be said that this will only indirectly improve the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended.
I am arguing that female nurses will come in under paragraph (b, ii) of Clause 1 (2). As things stand I do not know what the position of male nurses may be, and we shall have to consider that later.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My hon. Friend is aware that both paragraphs (a) and (b) have to be satisfied, and the fact that a charity comes in under paragraph (b) does not avoid the necessity of satisfying paragraph (a) as well.

Mr. Rippon: Yes, I agree that they may come under "social and economic circumstances." I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to another difficulty that we must meet in interpreting the provision as it stands. I hope, in spite of what my hon. and learned Friend has said, that the Government will consider the desirability of inserting the words "directly or indirectly" on the Report stage if they will not insert the word "directly" now.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I support the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), but I find myself a little confused, and perhaps the Attorney-General will help us? I can understand the contention that the word "directly" is restrictive, for it would suggest that "indirectly" would not fall within the scope of the provision. If, however, we added both "directly and indirectly" would it mean any more than if we had neither?
May I say in confidence that I am supporting the hon. Gentleman because the town clerk of the city I have the honour to represent in part has asked me to do so. In supporting him, I should not like to strain my feeling of common sense or understanding of the phrase in this subsection. If the Attorney-General can tell us that the existing words "with the object of improving" are at least as good as the words "with the object of directly or indirectly …", and better than adding the word "directly", I shall feel happier than I do at the moment.

The Attorney-General: I hope I can make the hon. Gentleman feel happier, because he has got to the substance of the matter—such substance as there is. It is difficult to see how recreational facilities can improve conditions of life otherwise than directly. If we inserted the words "directly or indirectly" they would cancel each other out and leave the position as it is. If we inserted only the word "directly" we should run the risk, which we want to avoid, of excluding from the scope of the Bill something which, prior to the Baddeley decision, would have been regarded as satisfying this requirement.
For those reasons we think it is better to leave the Bill as it is. It is not always a very good way of drafting a Bill, which has to be construed by the courts, to

take a particular dictum out of a judgment and insert it into a Measure.

Mr. John Taylor: I have listened to all the tortuous arguments about one word and I have a suggestion to make which may help the Committee out of its difficulty As it is obvious that the law of Scotland in this regard is very much superior to the law of England, why not scrap the Bill and adopt the law of Scotland?

Mr. Rippon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 2 to 5 and to insert:
(i) these facilities are provided for persons having a common qualification of youth, age, infirmity or disablement, poverty, adherence to a religious denomination or social and economic circumstances.
The object of this Amendment is to try to get some clarification on the point of the class of the community which might benefit under the provisions of this Bill. As was pointed out in the debate on its Second Reading, the Bill purports to deal only with one set of difficulties raised in the Baddeley case, those in relation to recreational charities.
There is a second point of considerable difficulty which was raised, but not resolved in the Baddeley opinions, and that is in relation to what constitutes a sufficient class of the community. There was a divergence of opinion between Lord Simonds and Lord Reid. Two law lords expressly reserved themselves on the point, and one said nothing. I am sure it would be the wish of many people that this matter should be clarified, so that there can be no question of a case such as the Baddeley case having to go right up to the House of Lords again, the one point having been clarified, to ascertain the position in regard to the second.
Lord Simonds expressed the view that the beneficiaries, being confined to members or potential members of the Methodist Church in that case, did not constitute a sufficient class to satisfy the necessity of a benefit to the public. On the other hand, Lord Reid expressed the opinion that the members of a particular church constitute a section of the community under the fourth head of charity for purposes beneficial to the community, just as much as under the third, namely, the advancement of religion.
If I may detain the Committee briefly, I will refer to two portions of the opinions expressed in that case. First, Lord Simonds said:
It is, however, in my opinion particularly important in cases falling within the fourth category to keep firmly in mind the necessity of the element of general public utility, and I would not relax this rule. For here is a slippery slope. In the case under appeal the intended beneficiaries are a class within a class; they are those of the inhabitants of a particular area who are members of a particular church: the area is comparatively large and populous and the members may be numerous. But if this trust is charitable for them, does it cease to be charitable as the area narrows down and the numbers diminish? Suppose the area is confined to a single street and the beneficiaries to those whose creed commands few adherents: or suppose the class is one that is determined not by religious belief but by membership of a particular profession or by pursuit of a particular trade. These were considerations which influenced the House in the recent case of Oppenheim. That was a case of an educational trust, but I think that they have even greater weight in the case of trusts which by their nominal classification depend for their validity upon general public utility.
Lord Reid, on the other hand, said:
But a meticulous examination of words used by judges, however eminent, cannot be decisive if these words were used in cases where the present question was in no sense in issue, so I turn to consider the authorities. In Verge v. Somerville the bequest was 'unto the trustees for the time being of the "Repatriation Fund" or other similar fund for the benefit of New South Wales returned soldiers.' There was no such fund in existence, but it was held that this was a valid charitable trust and that a scheme should be settled. The judgment of the Board was delivered by Lord Wrenbury. He made it plain that this case fell within the fourth of Lord Macnaghten's divisions of charity, and he stated the test to be applied in the words which I have already quoted, and I repeat the crucial words: 'The inhabitants of a parish or town or any particular class of such inhabitants (the italics are mine), may, for instance, be the objects of such a gift.'
5.0 p.m.
I should have thought it desirable, now that the House has an opportunity of considering the matter, to try to resolve the considerable difference of opinion which there appears to be between Lord Simonds and Lord Reid, particularly as we do not know what decision the House of Lords would have reached in the Baddeley case if the matters with which we are dealing in the Bill had then been resolved and were not in issue.
I am sure that it is the wish of large numbers of people that there should be

no doubt about the point that limitation to a particular religious denomination—Methodist, Presbyterian, or whatever it may be—should not be prejudicial. I should have thought that it was one of the most obvious cases where it would be accepted that there was a good reason for their carrying on their activities under the umbrella of their own religious belief. One might ask what the position of a Jewish boys' club would be or what that of a Roman Catholic scout organisation would be under the Bill as it now stands?
I hope that the Government will give some consideration to clarifying this matter which has caused considerable anxiety and doubt in the minds of those people who run charities as part and parcel—or at any rate to some extent—of the promotion of their religious beliefs. We know that the position is quite clear if the charity comes under the heading of "promotion of religion," but recreational charities will nearly always be under the fourth head and it would be helpful if their position could be clarified.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has asked for clarification on a point of law which, he said, arose for consideration in the Baddeley case. In fact, he said nothing in support of the Amendment beyond moving it. It is necessary for me to say why we do not feel it possible to accept an Amendment on these lines. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend like that. I will deal later with the substance of his speech.
The Amendment seeks to make mere adherence to a particular religious denomination a sufficient qualification for being a special object of social welfare on a par with youth, age, poverty and so on. As a necessary corollary to that, the reference to "need", which appears in line 2 in page 2, has been removed because, of course, mere adherence to a particular denomination cannot create a need for recreational facilities or for anything else.
I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will appreciate that to provide in this way that the fact of belonging to a particular denomination automatically makes a person an object of social welfare is to make nonsense of the whole subsection and to make the Bill absurdly wide. The principle by which


we stand is that indicated in Clause 1, that the facilities must be either for the class in special need listed in paragraph (i) of subsection (2, b), or for the public generally, or at least women generally.
That category represents, in the view of most people concerned, a category which, prior to the Baddeley case, was regarded as charitable. It is not our intention to extend it. Indeed, to depart from this would be to extend the range of "charity" unwarrantably and, as has often been said, that is not the Government's intention in this Bill.
If my hon. Friend believes that the Bill will put an end to all charity cases in the courts, I can only say that he possesses far greater optimism than I do about that. It would be extremely difficult in that complicated aspect of the law to draft a Bill which would have that effect. I ask him to bear in mind the limited objective of the Bill, which is a difficult one to achieve and which is to restore the position to what it was before the Baddeley case.
My hon. Friend referred to what Lord Simonds said in the course of his opinion on another point and to Lord Reid's dissenting speech. My hon. Friend has said, quite rightly, that a trust for the advancement of religion is a good charitable trust, even if it is only for the advancement of one religion or one sect. The observations made by Lord Simonds in the Baddeley case on the point to which my hon. Friend referred were directed to a trust limited not only by reference to the religious affiliations of the beneficiaries but also by reference to its geographical limitations. It is only if both those limitations apply that such a trust runs the risk of being invalid.
It is not possible in a Bill of this kind to define what extent in relation to a particular trust will satisfy the court that it is sufficiently extensive to meet the requirements of the law of charity. Indeed, the Bill is not intended to deal with that. That point existed long before the Baddeley case. My hon. Friend referred to the Oppenheim case and there was also the Williams case in the House of Lords on that point.
I make no apology to my hon. Friend when I say that the Bill is not intended or designed to tackle that very great

problem. It might be the subject of some other legislation, but it is not the object of this legislation to resolve that one among the many problems affecting the law of charity.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On this occasion, I find myself rather more in agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General than with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), who moved the Amendment.
I do not want to enlarge this Clause as the Amendment would do, because this is not a question merely of interpretation. There is some real substance in it, and I think the Attorney-General is right. On the other hand, I am not at all satisfied that, in fact, as drafted the Clause may not go further than the Attorney-General indicated. As I understand the matter, these two parts of subsection (2, b) limit the kinds of classes of person in whose favour a fund must have been given in order that it should be charitable. I think that the logical order should be the other way round.
In the first place, obviously, if it includes the whole community, then it is all right and there is no disagreement anywhere; or if it includes one section, we shall be able to deal with that point when considering another Amendment. In the first half of paragraph (b), the person must—
have need of such facilities as aforesaid by reason of their youth, age, infirmity or disablement, poverty or social and economic circumstances;
What is puzzling me a little is what is the meaning of "social and economic circumstances." As I understand the matter, the purpose is not to extend the provisions of the Bill so as to cover charities in favour, for example, of the employees of a particular factory, because it is undesirable, on the whole, that we should have charitable gifts in favour of such employees unless such gifts are charitable otherwise. I think everyone will agree with that. I am not at all certain that we could not say that the employees of a particular factory are not, so to speak, a class which could be defined by reference to their "social and economic circumstances."
Again, and I think this is important, in the cases of the miners' welfare funds, which are dealt with by the next


Clause, the Clause is limited to existing trusts, and it would not legalise future trusts in favour of miners and miners alone. I am not certain that it may not be that these words "social and economic circumstances" would not, in fact, enlarge this Clause so as to bring in miners, and, again, other sections of the community.
This is difficult ground, and there is room here for genuine conflict. I do not want to be controversial but I want to know what my right hon. and learned Friend has in mind. If, for example, this excludes miners as a class, or fishermen as a class, or the employees of a particular factory as a class, does he think that "social and economic circumstances" must mean something quite general, and not something particular, for example, the nature of their trade?

Sir L. Heald: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General whether he has had in mind, in that connection, the very puzzling fact that there is already in the Copyright Act, 1956, a provision about social welfare which deals with the question of the performance of sound recordings. I understand that there was recently a case dealing with a miner's welfare fund in which it was decided that it did give this exemption. Does it or does it not give this exemption under this Bill? I would have thought that what we have heard so far would suggest that it does not, but can it really be satisfactory to have social welfare in one Act meaning one thing and in another Act meaning another thing?
Does not my hon. Friend agree with me that, while we do not disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend's view about this Clause in relation to the Amendment, it is very desirable that, when we are considering such words as these that we should give some time to the question whether social welfare in this Bill is being defined in terms consistent with the provisions of previous Acts of Parliament or not?

5.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has asked about the meaning of the words "social and economic circumstances". They are words which we selected, after much deliberation, to

meet a particular problem—the problem which we encounter particularly, for instance, in relation to the Missions to Seamen.
We cannot say that seamen arriving in port are suffering from poverty. On the other hand, it is obviously desirable that the missions to seamen should remain a charitable institution, and we felt that the wording here—"social and economic circumstances"—would clearly cover that type of charitable institution. That is what these words are designed to achieve. We still feel that the word "social" by itself would be far too wide, and would let in a number of institutions which were not charitable before the Baddeley decision, and that is the explanation for that choice of words. This question really does not arise on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South raised it and I thought it convenient to deal with it straightaway.
The inclusion of the words referred to in this part of the Bill does not enlarge the scope of the law relating to charities beyond what it was before the Baddeley decision. It certainly does not go as far—because we have these words "social and economic circumstances"—as to make the activities conducted by a company or corporation on behalf of its employees charitable activities. There are clear decisions to the contrary, which remain unaffected by the Bill—decisions based upon the grounds that such activities are not for the public benefit. That is one reason why we have kept, and thought it desirable to have, in an earlier part of the Bill the express proviso in regard to the public benefit.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point, because it has enabled me, perhaps, to save a little time, and I hope to satisfy him that real and prolonged thought has been given to this choice of words. It is not an easy one, but I think it is satisfactory for the purpose.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) asked about the Copyright Act. I must say that I cannot see how any question about the Copyright Act can arise on this Amendment, but, to answer my right hon. and learned Friend quite shortly, I would say that the Bill has been drafted after consideration of all the other


statutory provisions. The real object of the Bill, as I have said more than once, is to reverse the effect of the Baddeley decision. It is not meant to have an impact on the wording of the Copyright Act as, in our belief, it is effective for the purposes for which it is designed.

Mr. Rippon: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for some clarification of the statement he has just made that the effect of the Bill is to reverse the decision in the Baddeley case? With respect, I suggest that it does not do that, and in so far as the Bill still leaves unresolved—

The Attorney-General: I said that it reverses the effect of the Baddeley decision. We are leaving the Baddeley decision standing as it is, but providing that what were thought to be charities before the Baddeley decision are treated as charities again.

Mr. Rippon: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I think the Committee is grateful for the careful and patient way in which he has been explaining what the Clause does. No one on this side of the Committee would suggest that this is other than a very difficult piece of drafting, and there can be no doubt that the Government have given great care to the matter. At the same time, we feel that there are certain ways in which, perhaps, the draft may be clarified and doubt removed.
The Amendment raises the wide question whether, now that we have the opportunity—the first since the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act of 1888—to consider the law of charities, we should also resolve the second doubt about the Baddeley case, namely, the question of what constitutes a sufficient class of the community, with particular reference to the charitable activities of church organisations. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that in any event the Baddeley decision applies only where facilities are provided in East Ham, or Leyton, let us say, for Methodists or potential Methodists, and that it would not apply where these facilities were provided for Methodists at large.
In the majority of cases, however, the facilities are provided for a class within a class—for those inhabitants of a certain area who are Methodists or potential

Methodists, or Presbyterians, or whatever the religious denomination may be. Many organisations and charities may be affected unless we clear up this point.

Dr. Stross: Earlier the hon. Member gave two examples. He asked us to consider the case of a Catholic troop of scouts and a Jewish boys' organisation. Are not they in any event covered by the wording of the Bill? Subsection (2, b, i) refers to the need of certain persons for such facilities:
by reason of their youth, age,
and so on. Are not they automatically covered in any event, without there having to be any consideration of the question whether they belong to a certain denomination?

Mr. Rippon: Yes; subject to the satisfaction of the other provisions, that is probably so. It is not always easy to suggest an example that is directly in point. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend can clarify the position, because it is causing doubt. It would be helpful if he would make it clear that a Roman Catholic scouts' club or a Jewish boys' club would be within the scope of the Bill.
Unfortunately, we shall still not know the position about recreational facilities provided by a church organisation, even if those facilities directly improve the conditions of life of the beneficiaries. My right hon. and learned Friend also made the point that the Amendment as drafted omits the word "need", but it may be argued that that word is not necessary in this context because the facilities have to improve the conditions of life, and it is difficult to see how the provision of recreational facilities can be needed for any other purpose than directly to improve the conditions of life. It would therefore seem that that is not necessarily an overriding objection to the Amendment.

Dr. Horace King: I have been asked by the town clerk of Southampton to support the Amendment. The town clerk is learned in the law and I am a layman, but, having heard the hon. Member move the Amendment and the Attorney-General reply, I feel that the Amendment is not necessary. As I read the proviso that we are discussing, no church is excluded


merely by being a church, and no sect is excluded merely by being a sect. The reasons listed are youth—and this would apply to both Catholic and Jewish communities; age—which would include old folk who are Methodists or Plymouth Brethren, or whatever they may be; infirmity, and so on. All religious sects would be included.
The sub-paragraph pinpoints the features which make a trust a charitable one, and if we add the words of the Amendment we shall be broadening the aim of the Clause to include every aspect of the work of any sect. The Attorney-General has answered the point.

Mr. Rippon: It is not quite so simple as that. The difficulty with many of these organisations—especially church organisations—is that they provide the facilities primarily but not exclusively for youth. They are available to the whole church community. There may be some perfectly fit adult males in respect of whom one would doubt what the decision would be.
Secondly, the concern of local authorities does not turn upon the Amendment. It arises out of the fact that we are defining "social welfare"—a phrase which occurs in the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, and is now being interpreted in the courts, and which also appears in the Copyright Act, 1956, and the Miners' Welfare Act, 1952. It is a phrase which has been subject to a great deal of judicial interpretation, and which has given rise to grave doubts.
The interest of local authorities in the matter arises from the fact that a committee has been set up to consider the operation of Section 8 of the 1955 Act, which provides a measure of relief from rates to various organisations. It is felt that in whatever terms we define the phrase "social welfare" in the Bill—whether we include religious denominations or not—the deliberations of the Pritchard Committee must be influenced. There is strong feeling on the part of the Association of Municipal Corporations about the fact that it has never been consulted.

Mr. R. Williams: The hon. Member has gone so widely outside the terms of his Amendment that, since we have

already debated the point that he is now raising, and since that point has been resolved by his withdrawal of an earlier Amendment, he is beginning to strain the patience of some hon. Members. He is going over the same argument, upon an Amendment to which it has no relevance.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is going far beyond the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Rippon: I apologise, Sir Gordon I did not want the point to go unanswered.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Philip Bell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "or social and economic circumstances".
I made some reference to this Amendment during the Second Reading debate. I may be more dull than usual, but I did not understand the explanation of the phrase "social or economic circumstances". The Clause appears to have a cutting-down effect. It is not sufficient to prove that the trust concerned is for social welfare—whatever that might be; there is a good deal of controversy about it at the moment—but it also has to be limited in the way set out in the subsection.
Most of us could make a ready judgment on the question whether facilities were provided for people by reason of their youth. It may be that as we get older we like to lift the age of youth, but we should have a fair shot at saying whether somebody is young or old. "Infirmity" speaks for itself and so does "disablement" and "poverty". But I ask the Committee, what do we mean by "social circumstances"? I am not asking what is meant by "social welfare", but what is really meant by "social circumstances". Is it a sort of reference to colour, or grade or to geography or party?. What are the social circumstances which make it necessary for a person to have his condition of life improved by this trust?
5.30 p.m.
The same argument would appear to apply to "economic circumstances". As I said during the Second Reading debate, that is already known and has been given a fairly wide definition already. It does not mean actually that people are


distressed. But when we have the wide meaning for poverty given by the courts, this seems to me to be putting in a phrase for judges to interpret without any clue as to what is meant by the words, "social and economic circumstances." In a charitable trust there can be charity for aged people irrespective, so to speak, of a means test, and that also applies in the case of blind people. But here, as the Clause is drafted, is brought in another category of "social and economic circumstances."
I believe that it was said that that was necessary to give more flexibility to the other categories. I am doubtful whether that is so, but if it is meant to give flexibility it is impossible to see what that flexibility is to be or where it begins and ends. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether this is not a little surplusage; some words put in to fill up a gap. No one seems to be quite sure what they mean or what they do, but it seems to be considered that they will not do any harm to anybody—except all the people who have to litigate upon the meaning of these vague words. Unless they mean something, and examples are given, I ask the Committee to press that these words be left out.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has given me an opportunity to explain this matter to him. It was explained to the rest of the Committee very clearly by my right hon. and learned Friend, when he dealt with the last Amendment. It is quite simple.
As my hon. and learned Friend knows, it is the object of the Bill to ensure that trusts and institutions which have long been generally regarded as charitable should be so regarded in the future. With that in mind, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider this Amendment. I regard this as a probing Amendment, but, were we to accept it, we should exclude some institutions which have been treated as charitable in the past. My hon. and learned Friend asked for an example and the most vivid and clear example is that provided by The Missions to Seamen, which provide facilities for rest and recreation as well as accommodation.
There are circumstances where individuals, often men—I stress that in view

of what may be thought in relation to women in this Bill—find themselves cut off from their normal home life and social environment. Although not suffering from poverty they are unable to pay for the recreation and leisure-time occupation that they need, because their jobs take them into various parts of the United Kingdom. We say that such a combination of social and economic circumstances has been recognised in the past as creating a need, the satisfaction of which is a proper object of charity.
It is thought, therefore, that we should preserve that principle for the future in this Bill. It will be for the courts to apply that principle to other categories than the missions to seamen, should any particular case arise.
I do not think that the courts will have the difficulty in interpreting these words which my hon. and learned Friend has experienced. The words "social and economic", if taken separately, would, I agree, at once give rise to difficulty in the context of this Bill. That is why we did not use either of them singularly, but have used them together, and it will be the duty of the courts to interpret them together, and to consider the phrase "social and economic circumstances." In considering that phrase, I think that the courts will come to the conclusion that when men find themselves in circumstances in which their lives have to be led partly away from home; where, although they are not poverty stricken, they are certainly not rich enough to provide themselves with the facilities they may reasonably need or even with essential facilities, and such facilities are provided, it would be right to regard them as having been provided in the interests of social welfare. With that explanation, I hope my hon. and learned Friend will feel happier about this matter.

Mr. Philip Bell: I admit that I was absent without leave earlier in this discussion. These words seem to me to cover the particular example which has been quoted. My anxiety is whether they may not cover a great deal more, and how they may be limited. But I do not wish to detain the Committee, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "or", to insert:
the male members or the".
This Amendment is designed to clarify a point which arises under Clause 1 (2, b, ii). Facilities are to he available for the
members or female members of the public at large.
As drafted, it would appear that this extends a special provision to female members of the public at large. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it is not the intention in this Bill to make any amendment in the existing law of charity. It would appear that this is a novel provision which goes much further than the requirement giving some precision to the position of Women's Institutes and bodies of that kind, as we were told during the Second Reading debate that it was the desire of the Government to do. It lays down a general and, to my mind, a novel proposition.
Take the position of the recreational facilities provided for nurses. If it can be said that these facilities are provided for the object of improving their condition of life, they would appear to come within the provisions of (b, ii) in that they are provided for the
female members of the public at large.
We shall deal in a moment with the question of the "public at large". It would appear that this would not apply to nurses in East or West Ham, but it would have to be the nurses of the whole country. If the facilities are provided, apparently they would be social welfare for female nurses but not for male nurses. That is an illogical distinction.
On the Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend made the point that women are provided with facilities which they could not normally provide for themselves and are, therefore, in a category different from the ordinary men's club, which has normally been regarded by the courts as a self-governing body. I would have thought that point was covered by the proviso in Clause 1 (1):
Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the principle that a trust or institution to be charitable must be for the public benefit.
The test of public benefit in that sense will still remain. It would be illogical to restrict the advantage of the Bill to female members of the public at large and not to

allow, in appropriate circumstances, the same facilities for male members.
This point was taken in another place, where the argument was put forward that the Bill said that a trust or institution could be charitable although its benefits were restricted to women, and that organisations restricted to men were regarded as incapable of being charitable. The point was also made that there was all the difference in the world between removing a disability in law and creating a privilege. We are accustomed to removing disabilities from women, but it is quite another matter to create a privilege.
On the Second Reading, we all accepted the argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend that it would probably be undesirable to attempt any new definition of charity and that it was necessary to keep the Bill restricted in its scope as far as possible and not to introduce unnecessary new amendments of the law. That is something that we may well accept; but it is curious, as was pointed out in another place, that while the Government have rejected the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income that there should be a new definition of charity—a rather more restricted one than many of us would wish in any event—nevertheless my hon. and learned Friend has introduced a Bill which creates a wholly new principle which has never, to the best of my knowledge, been raised in the courts in this way at all. I hope, therefore, that the Government will very seriously consider some amendment of the Bill on the lines that I have suggested.

Sir L. Heald: I would reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon). I would ask one question of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, to which I would request a perfectly clear and definite answer. Would he be good enough to answer this question: is it not right to say that the Clause introduces a wholly new principle that has not been suggested either in a judgment in the courts, let alone the opinion of a learned Law Lord, or by anybody who has ever considered the problem of charities or charitable trusts? Will he further disagree or agree that the principle does not appear to be based upon considerations of law, morals or common sense?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton: Let me answer the challenge of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) first. We say that we agree that it so happens that this principle does not appear to have been tested in any decided case in the courts. I would not go further than that in the judicial history of the matter. Of this I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend, that for many years the interpretation placed upon the law by the Inland Revenue has been in the sense embodied in the Bill. The question is whether we should continue the attitude and the practice of the Inland Revenue.
The broad principle underlying the Bill—if it is not rude to use the analogy in connection with the members of the fair sex—is that when the bone is in the dog's mouth we shall not remove it. This is a bone which, quite clearly, has been enjoyed by women's organisations for some time in the past. Perhaps I may explain why.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Sir H. Lucas-Tooth rose—

Mr. Renton: This is a complicated matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) will no doubt have an opportunity of catching your eye, Sir Gordon. Fortunately, this being the Committe, I can inflict as many speeches on hon. Members as are necessary. I shall be delighted to deal with my hon. Friend's point later. May I deploy my case first?
Consider the effect of the Amendment, which would add the male members of the public to the Bill so that they would be one of the particular classes qualifying for the facilities to be the subject of social welfare. The effect of the Amendment was debated in another place. I think that it was the only Amendment which was debated there; and a very full and interesting debate took place.
The effect would be to make charitable the recreational clubs and institutes confined to men. The Bill is directed to confirming the status of institutes regarded as charitable prior to the Baddeley judgment, such as Women's Institutes. It is part of Government policy not to extend the field of charities. The Amendment would introduce a new and dangerously extended class of trust which has hitherto been excluded.
It is implied in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) that clubs and institutes provide recreational facilities confined to men's clubs, which have never before been treated as established for charitable purposes. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey will find a decided case in which men's clubs have been so regarded. The absence of any contrary decision of the courts suggests that it is not only good law but good sense.
Men, other than young men and old men, have generally been in a position to provide recreation for themselves. Generally speaking, women, in the past, have not been in that position. I concede the point that it is a bit difficult to generalise when talking about this matter. The man has very often been the wage-earner, whether as husband or father, and the mother has often been the person who has had just the bit of housekeeping money. For that reason, Women's Institutes and other women's organisations have grown up. There is good reason for the view that as a class men are not in any special need of the charitable provision of places of recreation such as the Bill has in view.
An apparent exception will arise, but again I do not think it is a real one. Sometimes a local institute or ex-Service men's club might have been confined to men when it first started, but eventually the trust may have been extended so that women were admitted. It may have come to be used by both sexes and become the village hall. In a case like that no doubt it would be used by the public at large.
An institute providing educational facilities and confined to men in the first instance may never have admitted women. It may have become a charity through being an educational charity. There is an apparent exception, but we must not allow consideration of these apparent exceptions—which are not real ones—to cloud the issue. The real fundamental issue is that if we allowed the Amendment, or did not have the limiting words:
members or female members of the public at large
any drinking club might well come to be regarded as charitable. That, I am sure, would be a situation which we would wish to avoid.
I hope that the explanation is understood by my hon. Friends and that they will realise we have not introduced a new principle. We have not created a new privilege. Here, as in other parts of the Bill, we are trying to confirm and clarify part of the law about which doubts arose as a result of the Baddeley judgment and we feel those doubts should be removed.

Dr. King: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with that last point a little further? He said that a drinking club might become charitable if we carried this Amendment. If his argument has any validity any drinking club which wishes to become charitable merely has to introduce women members.

Mr. Renton: If I misled the Committee, I apologise, but I do not think I did. I used the word "might". There are various other tests which would have to be applied and the whole thing would have to be fitted into the law of charity. What I was trying to get at was that we do not wish to bring drinking clubs within the law of charity.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. and learned Friend has supported the Bill as it stands on the ground that it has not introduced any new principles. He said that the principle embodied in this paragraph is that applied by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for a long time past. Does he know of any case in which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have refused to allow as a charity any trust on the ground that it was limited to members of the male sex? That is the sole question at issue.
What the paragraph does is to say that it may be a charity if it gives its benefits to all mankind—by mankind I mean humankind—it may be a charity if it gives its benefits to women, but it cannot be a charity if it gives its benefits to all men. That seems to be a principle which is quite unacceptable. It may be that it has very little importance in this context, but I think we should look very critically at a principle of this kind before embodying it in a statute.

Mr. Renton: The point is easily answered by pointing out that in subsection (2, b, i) it will be found that it is possible for clubs or institutes which

are confined to men to be regarded as recreational charities if the facilities are provided by reason of the
youth, age, infirmity or disablement, poverty or social and economic circumstances
of the men concerned.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If that is the case, subsection (2) is quite unnecessary. What my hon. and learned Friend has said is equally applicable to women, but women are expressly brought in.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Surely my hon. and learned Friend has been showing the whole weakness of the case the Government are putting forward, because it appears to equate womanhood with other disabilities, such as poverty or infirmity. That is the only point of singling out womanhood from manhood. It may be that in the past, when womanhood was a disability, it was the practice of the Inland Revenue authorities to treat trusts exclusively for the benefit of women as valid charitable trusts because women were in such a parlous state, but surely today it is a monstrous reflection on women virtually to put them in the same category as the poor, the old, the infirm, and the disabled.
We ought to keep this discussion going until an hon. Lady comes into our deliberations, so that we can see whether the ladies really desire this slur put upon them, for such it can only be. If it is charitable to do something for women when it is not charitable to do something for men, that must of necessity mean that women are still considered so weak, or in need of care and protection, that special arrangements must be made for them which, in exactly the same circumstances, do not need to be made for men. Is that a thing to do in the middle of the twentieth century without hearing one woman protest?

The Attorney-General: I hope that we may make a little progress on this matter, because it has been well discussed both in this House and in another place. The point is simply that Women's Institutes have been regarded as charitable, and were regarded as charitable before the Baddeley decision. That has thrown considerable doubt on their position. Everyone enjoys the sort of speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), but at the end of the day it conies down to this:


are we to make special provision in a Bill of this character to put Women's Institutes into a secure position? I think that everyone in this Committee would say, "Yes." That is why we have to have this specific reference to, "female members of the public."
The point has been made, "Why is there this specific reference and no provision also made for facilities for male members of the public?" The answer is that if there had been an institute for men comparable with the Women's Institutes we would certainly have to do so, but exhaustive inquiry has not revealed any comparable institution. Therefore, in the process of correcting the effects of the Baddeley decision, there is no need to legislate in that form. That is all there is about it.
It is not necessary, I suggest to my hon. Friends with the greatest respect, to get at all heated about this, or to prolong the discussion, unless it means that they want—as I am sure they do not—the position of Women's Institutes to remain in doubt. But for that kind of institution there would have been no need to make any specific reference to "female members of the public," but that has created a need.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Rippon: What is extremely difficult to follow on this side is the suggestion that if we let in male members we allow a male drinking club, but that if we let in female members we do not let in a female drinking club. Surely, however, there are other tests that would be satisfied by neither the male nor the female club, as the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) rightly pointed out in his intervention.
Nobody on this side of the Chamber, nor, I suppose, on the other, wishes to prejudice the position of Women's Institutes, but it will not, however, escape attention that a specific reference to Women's Institutes is made in the next subsection. On Second Reading, we discussed how far it was desirable to attempt to lay down a general principle or, alternatively, to enumerate the charities that would be regarded as satisfying the test of social welfare. On balance, I think that it must be right to abide by the general principle, but we have made an exception in the case of miners' welfare

charities and have, in effect, in subsection (3) made an exception in the case of Women's Institutes.
Here, it might be convenient, and would save time, to refer to the Amendment in page 2, line 8, to leave out "subject to the said requirement" and to insert:
without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions".
Acceptance of that Amendment would mean that we are not tying the Women's Institutes to any requirement in Clause 2, and we might get round their position in that way. We are not anxious to hold up this Bill which is, in principle, an excellent one, but it is important that such a novel principle as this should not be introduced. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he had never heard of a male organisation to which this would apply, but I have tentatively thrown out the possibility of a male nurses' organisation which might well satisfy the same tests as an organisation of female nurses, or Women's Institutes.

Dr. King: With all respect, I do not think that the Attorney-General has answered the very serious point put to him by his right hon. and learned predecessor the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). This Bill does legislate on a principle. The Attorney-General is worried about preserving the position of Women's Institutes. They are specifically mentioned in the next subsection to be discussed, and the purpose of this subsection (2) is to do two things.
First, it is to secure that the provisions are made for the public at large. That is common ground, and has the support of every member of the Committee. But then it goes on to say that those provisions must be either for men and women or for women. If it is for men only, they are excluded from the provision. That seems to be quite a serious matter. I am a feminist. I have spent quite a lot of my life advocating equality for the female sex. This question seems to be one of advocating equality for the male sex, and I hope that we will stick at it.

Mr. Philip Bell: I want to add my protest against this monstrous regiment of women. I really do not understand this provision. I have had only a short time to consider all its implications,


and I quite understand that those responsible have looked round and have found only the Women's Institutes. It is sometimes suggested that in these matters the best way is to leave it to an Order in Council to pick out particular institutions, and that another way is to put it in a Schedule. It has been pointed out, however, that there is always the danger of missing someone out, which is rather unfair, so I think that we would do better to make it a general expression.
In this Clause we have reference to three forms of institution, but to no others. We are told that those three are in because they have been ratified, and we are assured that there are not any others. I am sure that that assurance is made in good faith, but I do not like picking out just certain institutions. We are told that we must not go any further in altering the law, but if we are altering the law, we are altering the law.
I am not satisfied that the Baddeley decision said that Women's Institutes were not charities. I think that it decided that if an omnibus clause is used, too large a number is let in, but I do not think that it mentioned Women's Institutes at all. If this is done once, and we have a sudden segregation of sexes, who knows what further little nibbles we will be taking at the law of charity?

Amendment negatived.

Sir L. Heald: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end to insert:
or of some appreciably important section of the community".
I do not want to delay the Committee, but I feel that it is our duty to consider this matter very carefully. It has already been pointed out that there has not been any legislation in connection with charities for many years, and that we are still dependent on an Act of Parliament in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and on one famous House of Lords' decision in the last century.
I would have thought that if we were to bring in any legislation on the subject it should be very carefully considered, and should be comprehensive. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the legislation to which we are now asked to agree really deals with the Baddeley case. That should be quite clearly understood. I have to make a very respectful protest

against the way in which the whole matter has been introduced.
By way of preface, I say that I do not consider that the fact that someone on this side criticises the Government shows any kind of weakness, or anything of the kind. That is not the way in which we approach things, or, at any rate, it is not the way in which I approach things. We should not have that consideration in mind at all. This is not a party matter. Nevertheless, it is a very important matter indeed. I want it to be quite clearly understood that I very much welcome the Bill in so far as it preserves the position of certain very important charities jeopardised by the Baddeley case.
I want to read what my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor stated to be the background of the Bill when it was introduced in another place:
There has been little precedent for legislation of this kind for many years, and the Government have felt the need for great caution in venturing upon an untried field. They have exercised great care to avoid"—
and these are the important words—
even even an appearance of encroachment on the traditional functions of the courts …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st January, 1958; Vol. 207, c. 17.]
With the greatest possible respect to my noble Friend, I suggest that that is not the proper way to consider legislation. The House of Lords made a decision. No one suggests that it acted wrongly. It decided in accordance with what it believed to be the laws and statutes. The Government have come to the conclusion that that decision should be altered. We should not be afraid of that. Nobody in the House of Lords will feel insulted. The Law Lords will not feel that we are criticising them for altering the law. I like to think that they are rather bigger men than that. They may say, privately, what they think of us either in that or in some other respect, but that does not mean that they feel any resentment, and I very respectfully protest against that method of dealing with the matter.
The question is: is the Baddeley decision considered objectionable and wrong; ought it to be corrected, and should the Committee correct it? Two points in the Baddeley decision are involved. One is dealt with in the Bill, but the other is not dealt with at all, and


the leaving open of the second one will, in my respectful opinion and that of many other people, lead to another Baddeley case if we do not do anything about it.
The first point, as the Committee very well knows, was whether the recreational purposes were sufficient to justify charity. The answer was that they were not. The second point was quite a different one. It was whether the class of persons to whom the charity was restricted was an appropriate one. That was left completely in the air by the House of Lords. One of their Lordships decided that it was, one decided that it was not, two were undecided, and the the fifth gave no opinion at all. So there is a perfectly open goal, if I may so put it, and the House of Lords may well have another case to consider.
I must read what Lord Justice Jenkins said in the Court of Appeal. Having decided the first point about the recreational side—it is agreed that we are now supporting Lord Justice Jenkins on that—he said:
It remains to consider the question of public benefit. Are persons resident in the county boroughs of West Ham and Leyton who are, in the opinion of the leaders referred to, members or likely to become members of the Methodist Church a sufficient section of the public for the purpose of a charitable trust? Speaking for myself, I have no doubt that they are.
There was an appeal to the House of Lords, where it was "one all", with two noble Lords refusing to give an opinion and a fourth being completely silent.
What is the position now, if another case arises after this Bill, the same kind of case, in spite of the fact that we know it is the law at present and is said to be the law that a section of the community may, in certain circumstances, be charitable? Lord Justice Jenkins was quite clear. In the House of Lords, Lord Simonds took a view completely contrary to Lord Justice Jenkins, but Lord Reid agreed with him.
If I may respectfully say so, from the way in which this Amendment has been dealt with, it does not appear likely that very much attention will be paid to anything that is said. But it should be said, because it is a matter of public importance. My Amendment adds words after
the public at large.

As the Clause stands, the danger is that the argument may be put up that it must be for the public at large and cannot be for a section. We suggest that there should be added to that,
or of some appreciably important section of the community.
I hope that it will not be said that that is a woolly expression. I should warn anyone who is thinking of saying that that it comes from a very eminent Law Lord, Lord Wrenbury. It has since been approved of by Lord Simonds, formerly Lord Chancellor, and by Lord Reid. I should have thought that it was almost more Woolsack than wool. That expression has been used to make it clear that it is not necessary to have the public at large benefited by the trust.
Lord Simonds has said that a geographical section of the community is enough, but he went on to say that a geographical section limited to Methodists is not enough. Lord Reid, on the other hand—a very eminent judge whom some Members of the House will remember, in rather different circumstances, when he was Lord Advocate—took the view that the limitation to Methodists was perfectly proper.
We are being asked to amend or to clarify the law, and that point has been left open. There are a large number of charities who are uncertain what their position will be. Frankly, the Government have not so far had the courage to deal with this matter. They have said, "Let the courts decide these cases". I suggest that we would not be performing our duty if we were to let the courts decide. We ought to do something to make the position clear.
I am interested in one organisation which is very much concerned in this Bill, although it is confined to boys and, therefore, apparently, from what we have heard, ought not to be regarded as a charity at all. I am sure that there are a number of people who are concerned. They do not know, if this Bill goes through as it stands, whether they will not find themselves in this position, that somebody in a Government Department at a date in the near or distant future will say, "They have not altered the other part of the Baddeley case. So let us challenge this Bill not on the recreational point, but on the other point".
6.15 p.m.
Can anyone say with certainty what will be the result? I sincerely hope that Lord Justice Jenkins' statement will be upheld. I may have a personal interest, because I was engaged in that case. It was interesting in that the Attorney-General was not appearing on behalf of the Inland Revenue, but against it on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen as Guardian of Charities. Therefore, I may be prejudiced in saying that I think Lord Justice Jenkins gave a very wise decision.
At present, if a member of the Bar is asked to advise what the result will be in the House of Lords when there is a judgment of Lord Simonds one way and a judgment of Lord Reid the other and three uncertain starters, if I may so put it, he will say, "I cannot tell you what the result will be." Is it a satisfactory state of affairs that Parliament should leave this question undecided?
It may be that we shall be told that it was not possible to draft appropriate words. Is that really so? I have had experience of parliamentary draftsmen and I have never known a case where, if they had wanted to, or if somebody, with a large "S", wanted them to, they have not found a way of dealing with it. I would like to know whether they have tried, and, even if they have, may we suggest that they try again before the Report stage?

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) should be under the mistaken impression that not very much attention is being paid to what is being said tonight. The Joint Under-Secretary and myself have listened to every word and paid full and due attention to all that has been said.
May I say this, in reply to what he has said on this Amendment. I have already dealt fully with the points that he has raised. He is quite wrong in suggesting that this point, which was not decided in the Baddeley case, was a point which arose for the first time in the Baddeley case. It was nothing of the sort. There has always been difficulty about the size of the class and that difficulty remains.
My right hon. and learned Friend posed the question: is it satisfactory that the law should be left in this state?

That question can be put with regard to many aspects of the law relating to charity, and the answer would always be the same. I am not particularly impressed by the posing of that kind of question. As I sought to show on Second Reading, and today, all we are seeking to do here is to correct the consequences of the Baddeley decision on other charities on the point which came up and was decided, rather to some people's surprise, in that case.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend in an endeavour to solve that particular problem. The effect of it would be to bring within the scope of the Bill recreational facilities for Members of Parliament, town councillors, medical practitioners, and indeed, any class of any size or significance. That would be an extension of the law of charity.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider what has already been said about this Measure and to excuse me if I do not reply to him at greater length. I gather that there is an arrangement about other business being taken fairly soon. I hope I can remain in order by asking my hon. Friends to consider not moving the further Amendments on the Notice Paper. If the Committee accepts the Government Amendment on the Notice Paper, there is bound to be a Report stage, in which case the Amendments still remaining for discussion could be tabled and, no doubt, discussed on that occasion. I hope in those circumstances that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate why I do not reply to him at greater length.

Sir. L. Heald: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I am very glad to assist, but I should like to ask that, in the interval which is to be provided, opportunity will be taken to give this matter further consideration, it being possible that my right hon. and learned Friend might feel that he may even have received some new ideas on the subject. In the circumstances, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I understand that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) does not intend to move his


Amendment in page 2, line 11, after "maintenance" to insert "otherwise than for profit."

Mr. Rippon: That is correct, Sir Charles. I do not move it on the understanding that we shall have an opportunity later to consider the matter again.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(SAVINGS AND OTHER PROVI- SIONS AS TO PAST TRANSACTIONS.)

The Chairman: Again, I gather that the hon. Member for Norwich, South, does not wish to move his Amendment in page 3, line 4, to leave out from "time" to "so" and to insert:
before the seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty seven.

Mr. Rippon: That is so, Sir Charles.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, to leave out subsection (3).
This is a formal, traditional Amendment which will take out of the Bill the subsection which the House of Lords put in to preserve the jurisdiction of the House of Commons in financial matters. That subsection has now become unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (OMNIBUS SHELTERS AND QUEUE BARRIERS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the erection and maintenance of omnibus shelters and queue barriers by local authorities in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Secretary of State or the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act.—[Mr. Maclay.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (CHILDREN) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the powers of courts to make orders in respect of children in connection with proceedings between husband and wife and to require arrangements with respect to children to be made to the satisfaction of the court before the making of a decree in such proceedings, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided—

(a) under section forty-seven of the Children Act, 1948, or
(b) under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.—[Mr. Maclay.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND ELECTORAL BILL

6.24 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): When I spoke in the debate on 25th November on the Constitution Amendment Bill of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, I promised, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that an opportunity would be given to debate the Electoral Bill at an appropriate time. The Bill was passed by the Federal Parliament on 9th January, and, under Section 10 (2) it has been reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. In addition, the African Affairs Board, under powers conferred on it by Section 75 of the Constitution, has asked that the Bill be reserved, since it is, in the view of the Board, a differentiating Measure. The reasons why the Board, by a majority, came to this opinion, together with the views of the Government of the Federation, have been set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 362, which was isued last Tuesday. We have placed copies of the Bill itself in the Library also.
In the Bill, the Federal Government have had to make provision for the election of two different categories of members. There are the elected members—I shall call them the ordinary members in the course of my speech—who are the members whose numbers were increased by two-thirds, from 26 to 44, by the Constitution Amendment Act. They form one category. There are then nine out of the fifteen members specially charged with the duty of representing African interests. Of these nine, six are elected African members, two from each Territory, who were added by the Constitution Amendment Act when doubling the number of African members originally provided for in the Constitution. Two of the remaining three are elected African members, and the other one is a specially elected European member, all three coming from Southern Rhodesia and previously elected under Regulations made by the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. Thus, in this second category there are altogether eight elected African members and one specially elected European member for whom the Federal electoral law has to provide in the first instance.
In certain circumstances, as hon. Members know, the numbers could change until, eventually, perhaps, special representation could disappear altogether. We discussed that at length in the debate some weeks ago, but, for the present, the Federal Government must provide for the election of members in both categories.
From what I have already said, hon. Members will realise that fully to grasp the effect of the Bill and the provisions it makes requires a quite considerable intellectual exercise. It is a very important piece of legislation, but a very complicated one. I say in passing that I wonder whether some of the people who have come to hasty judgments upon it or the societies which have sent me and my noble Friend resolutions about it have really mastered all its implications or whether they have not been tempted, perhaps, by one or two easy generalisations, into coming to a conclusion which on a closer examination of the facts—as history will later show, I believe—they would not have reached.
The scheme adopted by the Federal Government after prolonged consideration and consultation, which is now incorporated in the Bill, provides for two common rolls known as the general roll and the special roll. No distinction is made between the races. In fact, to ensure that all Africans can register if qualified in other respects, special provision has been made for British-protected persons from the two Northern Territories. This aspect of the matter is one in which I myself, as do many hon. Members, take a particularly keen interest. When I had the pleasure of a fairly lengthy tour in the Federation during the early part of last year, I found at first hand what I already knew, namely, how passionately attached Africans in the Northern Territories are to their status as British protected subjects. Hon. Members will know how firmly Africans in these Territories cling to this protected status. They are unwilling to become Federal citizens because, if they did, they would then also become British subjects, and if they became British subjects they would cease to be British protected persons. The Bill provides that they can register as voters without becoming Federal citizens and while still remaining British protected persons.
In this way the Federal Government have ensured that both rolls are really open on common terms without any distinction of race. I hope that the House will realise the importance of this and will not dismiss it as a trifle. There are many people in the Federation, as I know well, who feel strongly that all voters should be Federal citizens and that unless a person is prepared to become a Federal citizen he should not be a voter. The Federal Government recognise the need to understand the feelings of a protected person, and they have recognised them as important in the Bill. They have agreed that British protected persons, otherwise qualified, despite the fact that they are not Federal citizens, are entitled to register.
The general roll is designed for the election of the ordinary members, and the qualifications have been set at a level intended to ensure that, as far as practicable, only fully responsible voters can take part in those elections. Two sets of alternative qualifications have been prescribed for the roll, one relating to income or property, and the other to education. Those who can satisfy the highest income qualification, that is £720 a year, are simply required to be literate in English, while those who have completed four years of secondary education can qualify with an income of £300 a year. Then there are certain special cases provided for, so that chiefs and also ministers of religion who have completed a prescribed period of training and service are deemed to satisfy the income qualifications for this roll whatever their own personal remuneration may be.
The Federal Government recognise that at the present stage of social and economic development of the Federation, qualifications maintained at a level appropriate for admission to this general roll are certain not to admit Africans in the numbers which would be reasonably required for the election of members specially representative of African interests. For those elections, therefore, they have provided that voters on the special roll shall join with the voters on the general roll. The special roll is a common roll, but the income and educational qualifications are set lower than they are in the general roll. For the special roll, the income required is £150

a year for those who have simple literacy, while those who have completed two years in a secondary school can qualify with £120 a year.
I am sure that all hon. Members who have followed this carefully will realise that the general and special rolls are mutually exclusive. For example, a man with £1,000 a year cannot be registered on both rolls. He cannot cast two votes in two different capacities in the election of a special member. But a man who has improved his financial position can move from the special roll to the general roll and so gain the right to cast a vote not only for the special representatives but also for an ordinary member. Therefore, with the spread of facilities for education and opportunities for well-paid employment, which are growing all the time and going on now at an ever-increasing tempo, more and more Africans can expect to move from the special roll to the general roll without diminution of their influence in the selection of their special representatives, while more and more should also be able to qualify for the special roll for the first time.

Mr. James Johnson: May we be told what is the literacy test? Do the Commissioners make the test on a special form? We have not yet been told.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will deal with that point at the close of the debate. I knew that that matter would be raised.

Mrs. Irene White: Why cannot we have some information now? This is worrying a great many of us. It affects almost everybody.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must be—

Mrs. White: Mrs. White rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend and I must be allowed to conduct the debate somewhat in our own way. I have a great deal to say, and towards the end I am afraid that hon. Members will think that I have gone on for a great deal too long. Every point of interest to hon. Members will be covered, but I must claim the right to make my speech in my own way.
The Bill has been reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure under two separate provisions of the Constitution. In the first place, it is provided by Article 10 that to become law a Bill containing provisions of this nature, dealing among other things with qualifications for registration as a voter, requires the votes of two-thirds of the whole Federal Assembly, and a Bill which receives the requisite majority, as this Bill did on 9th January, shall he reserved. Therefore, the Bill would have been reserved in any case. The Bill would have had to be considered by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in any event.
The Constitution also provides a procedure whereby the African Affairs Board can ensure that any Bill which is in its view a differentiating Measure, as defined in the Constitution, shall be reserved, but in such cases my noble Friend is furnished with a statement of the Board's reasons for its opinion. Hon. Members will have been able to study the Board's reasons on this occasion in the White Paper.
It is fair to say that the purpose of the reservation in either case is really the same, and the issue which my noble Friend is called upon to decide in making up his mind on the nature of the recommendation to be made to Her Majesty is quite plain. He is concerned, not with the validity or otherwise of the opinion of the Board, but with the merits or otherwise of a Bill passed by the requisite majority in the Federal Parliament. He must, of course, also give very careful consideration to any opinion expressed by the Board, but as we have argued on previous occasions, and as I believe to be right, the mere existence of this opinion does not place any obligation upon him to disallow the Bill. It is from that point of view that I should like to offer a few observations on the reasons given by the Chairman of the Board in his request for reservation.
I need hardly tell the House that I value Sir John Moffat's friendship personally very much indeed. There is no man in Africa for whom I have a higher regard and he, alike for his personal qualities and his great family traditions, is a man to whom everybody will listen with great care and consideration. The first of the grounds which he has given

is that the qualifications for the general roll had been fixed at a level which would permit Europeans in general to qualify, but only the exceptional African. There is, of course, a great deal of truth in that, but that is surely one of the considerations which justify this special representation of African interests provided in the Constitution; and that is the situation which the Federal Government have tried to meet by providing for a special roll for which Africans can qualify in comparable numbers.
The Board's second point is that, compared with the influence that they were able to exert at the previous election, African electors will sustain a serious proportionate loss at the next election. That statement of the Board's is based simply on the fact that, unlike the existing representatives of African interests in the Northern Territories, the four new elected African members will not be returned on a purely racial basis and the proportion of the races on the rolls which will elect them remains uncertain. If that were indeed a valid objection to the Bill, I doubt whether it would ever be possible to take the first step away from the existing racial basis of representation. Yet it is the common roll principle which, in the belief of the Federal Government and of Her Majesty's Government, holds out the only real prospect of a complete and genuine partnership of the races.
The Board really has only described one half of the picture. In calculating the proportionate influence of Africans, we ought to remember that there will be twelve Africans in the Assembly after the next election, whatever the electoral provisions may be, although there were only six before. Now the number of Africans will be doubled while the number of ordinary members of unspecified race has been increased by only two-thirds. That of course, was settled by the previous Measure, the Constitution Amendment Act, but it is relevant, and it ought to be recalled in any comparison of the proportionate influence of Africans in the last election and in the next one.
Secondly, the addition of the special roll voters to those on the ordinary roll in the election of the specially elected European member and the four elected African members from Southern Rhodesia will give the Africans there an enormously increased say in these elections.


That is a very big proportionate gain, and it is one that is frequently overlooked. Even in the two Northern Territories, however, as the Board recommends, there is no change, so far as this Bill is concerned, in the method of returning the four existing Africans.
The method used for electing these members to the first Federal Assembly, however, did not allow many Africans to vote. The numbers of Africans who will be eligible to register on the special roles and to vote for the four newly elected African members runs to thousands, indeed to tens of thousands. So that from the beginning there will be a gain in respect of the numbers of Africans who will have the opportunity to take part in the election of their representatives, and we can expect with confidence these numbers to go on increasing, and substantially increasing, year by year.
The third point of the Board is really a suggestion for compensating this supposed loss of influence, for they note that there is no reciprocal arrangement by which the Africans on the special roll can take part in the election of the additional ordinary members. On this point, I would say that to give the voters on the special roll any other function than the election of special representatives of African interests would have been contrary to the intentions of the Federal Government in providing for such a roll. It would amount to the adoption of a new principle and a new solution for the whole problem. We must here concern ourselves with the solution which has been incorporated in the Bill in the form in which we have it now.
To sum up, the point of view of the Federal Government is that the system proposed in this Bill marks a departure from pure race representation and takes a significant step towards the creation of a common roll which we have generally agreed in this House is an objective at which we should aim in this and in other multi-racial societies. If adopted, the system would have the advantage in Southern Rhodesia that, for the election of the four elected African members and the one European member elected to represent African interests, there would be an electorate which could include between 20,000 and 30,000 instead of 1,000 as at present. I wonder how many of

those societies that have passed resolutions have really grasped that fact?
Secondly, in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland a substantial number of Africans—perhaps between 20,000 and 30,000—will for the first time in history be entitled to direct participation in the election of their representatives to any Assembly or Parliament. In Nyasaland there is clear evidence to show that the qualifications proposed will, when the general and special rolls are combined, allow the Africans to be in a majority at the next election.
In Northern Rhodesia it is possible that the numbers may be roughly equal, though I recognise that estimates differ. But at no point have the Federal Government attempted to swell their estimates in order to try to paint a rosier picture. I recognise that if the estimate of the Federal Minister of Law in Northern Rhodesia is taken, the balance at the next election, though not for subsequent elections, may be 6 to 4 in favour of the European.
Thirdly, the number of Africans who will actually take their seats in the Federal Parliament will be increased from 6 to 12. This has made it possible to include Africans from the Northern Territories who, like their counterparts in Southern Rhodesia, will owe their election to normal democratic processes, and this is done without disturbing the present arrangement by which the Northern Governors designates bodies representative of Africans to select the four African members originally in the Constitution. All these members will have the opportunity of taking part in the day-to-day work of Parliament and of learning by the experience of their own lives what a constitutional democracy means in practice.
Fourthly, and very important, the fact that a minimum of one-fifth of a House will be African must ensure that the major parties in that Parliament pay due regard to the African point of view. What is of equal importance, the public of all races in the Federation will be compelled to hear what elected African politicians are saying on all important issues, and their opinion cannot be suppressed or ignored. We can reasonably argue that the effect of these African members in the Chamber upon their European colleagues will be greater than the influence which


could be exerted on them by what, under other electoral schemes, would be a small minority of their constituents. I believe that is an aspect of these proposals which it is often lost sight of, and one which in the long run may do a great deal for the growth of feeling and spirit of partnership.
Finally, under this Bill British protected persons get the vote to which they have not been entitled either in the Federation or in Northern Rhodesia or in Nyasaland up to now.
It is the responsibility of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to judge this Bill on its merits. I have tried to set out these merits clearly for the House, because they form the basis upon which it will be the duty of my noble Friend to tender advice to Her Majesty. The view he and Her Majesty's Government have formed is that on its merits this Bill ought to become law in the Federation, and in reaching this opinion I feel sure that he will have strong support in this House and outside.
Unfortunately some critics of the Federal Government's scheme have not been content to look at this Bill on its merits, but have made the suggestion that it involves in some manner or another a breach of faith. I always read the Manchester Guardian because, on all Colonial matters, it takes an enormous amount of trouble and it is thoroughly worth reading. I read recently in it a suggestion that until 1960, when the whole future of the franchise could be thought out again in connection with the general review of the Constitution, the members of the enlarged Assembly should be elected in the same manner as the corresponding members of the present Assembly. This, it was suggested, to quote the Manchester Guardian,
would certainly free the British Government from any charge of a breach of the undertaking that no major change in the constitution should be made before 1960.
I have seen it alleged elsewhere that in 1953 assurances were given that there would be no change in the method of electing African members before 1960.
I hope and believe that I can show that those suggestions are unjustified. I can find no evidence whatever to support the allegation that assurances were given by the Government here or in the Federation

that any additional members to represent African interests would be elected in accordance with the methods set out in Article 13 of the Constitution, nor can I find any evidence that it was there held that any member would always be elected in that way.
When this matter was discussed in the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council, during the debate on the prior resolution required by Article 98 of the Constitution for the introduction of a Constitution Bill, no African member mentioned any question of assurances, nor for that matter did any African speaker take exception to the fact that the change proposed involved a departure from the principle embodied in Article 13 whereby all African representative members were elected by Africans.
In the corresponding debate in Nyasaland, objection was certainly taken to the fact that African representative members would not in future be selected exclusively by Africans, but there was no mention of any previous assurances. Had there been any misunderstanding of the position in the minds of the African spokesmen, I cannot believe that some reference would not have been made to this matter on one or both of those occasions.
There is another argument which has been used recently and which, I believe, to be equally misconceived. It was put at some length and forcibly by Sir John Moffat, Chairman of the African Affairs Board, on the Second Reading of the Electoral Bill, and it has been repeated in this country by critics of the Bill. Sir John Moffat stated that the Constitution was a bargain among the three Territorial Governments, the United Kingdom Government and European and African representatives at the Federation Conference, when it was first agreed. He goes on to argue that the bargain could be abrogated only when the parties to it met again and decided to substitute something better—at the 1960 conference.
I played some part in the earlier part of those discussions as Minister of State for the Colonies. Alas, I was not able to see them through, because I was transferred to an appointment elsewhere. However, I wholly accept Sir John Moffat's argument that the Constitution is a bargain. But what was the bargain


at which the parties arrived during the 1953 constitutional talks? The bargain was the Constitution itself, the whole Constitution from Article 1 to Article 99.
Article 99 is the Article which provides for the 1960 review conference, but Article 98, which is equally part of the bargain, provides that the Constitution can be amended, even in the major matter of the division of powers between the Federal and Territorial Governments, provided certain conditions are complied with. In the case of the Constitution Amendment Bill, those conditions were complied with. The three Territorial Governments who were parties to the original bargain passed resolutions saying that they had no objection to the introduction of that Bill.
Therefore, not only is it not true to say that the United Kingdom Government undertook not to make any major changes in the Constitution, but it is plain on the face of the Constitution itself that they agreed that, provided certain conditions were fulfilled, the Constitution could be amended. The allegation that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, by giving their approval to an alteration in the electoral system, would be committing a breach of faith has no foundation in fact, and I hope that it will not be repeated in the course of the debate.
I have referred to the resolutions which were passed in the three Territorial Legislatures before the Constitution Amendment Bill could be introduced in the Federal Assembly. Some hon. Members may have asked themselves whether I or Her Majesty's Government were in any way committed before I told the Governors of the Protectorates that I had no objection to the passage of these resolutions in their respective Legislative Councils and whether the discussions which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and I had with Sir Roy Welensky in April resulted in any sort of understanding which could prejudge the issues on which these two Federal Bills had been reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.
The House has known since the discussions with the Federal Prime Minister in April last that Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government were

agreed on the necessity for enlarging the Federal House. I do not think that anyone will dispute that need. Among those who criticise the Bill, I have found general agreement that the Federal House certainly needs enlargement. Certainly there were discussions about the franchise with Sir Roy, but they were discussions and not decisions. Her Majesty's Government made it clear that if there were to be new franchise proposals they hoped that British protected persons would be given the vote. There were useful exchanges of views on other aspects of the franchise also, but the franchise arrangements as a whole are, of course, the responsibility of the Federal Government.
That responsibility is laid upon them by the Constitution. Her Majesty's Government are brought in by the Constitution for a decision only at the final stage. The appropriate time for comment by Her Majesty's Government is when the proposals have been framed and debated in the Federal Parliament and referred, as they have now been referred, to the Secretary of State for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.
Everyone carried out his constitutional function. The African Affairs Board has perfectly properly put its views forward that in some respects this is a differentiating Measure. The fact that my noble Friend has found, after full consideration, that on balance the Bill is desirable does not lessen in any way the valuable part which the African Affairs Board has to play in the Constitution.
There is one other matter of very great importance to which reference was made previously and about which I want to say something. That is the constitutional development in the two Northern Territories. Here, of course, I have a very great personal responsibility. For a long time I have taken a considerable interest in this matter, as have right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I discussed this matter a number of times in the territories themselves in the early stages of these talks.
I know that some anxiety has been expressed because no account has yet been given of progress in this matter. As I told the House on 25th November, consultations are going on, and I can understand the eager interest with which the result of those consultations is awaited.


If there is any anxiety, I hope that I can assuage it. The impression may have got about that the constitutional development of the Protectorates will be held back in some way. I cannot say that there has been no waiting to see what the Federal proposals would be. There would have been plenty of critics if each of the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland had come out with a scheme without waiting to see what possibility there was, for instance, that the qualifications used for the Federal franchise could be used in some way in the territories, although not necessarily in the same way as in the Federal arrangements.
However, the timetable has been settled not by that consideration but, in the case of Northern Rhodesia, by the Legislative Council. A year ago, a Motion was accepted the effect of which was that the Council was to receive a report before the end of March. Obviously, I cannot forecast what stage will have been reached by then, but I can say with confidence that I have no reason to think that hon. Members most interested in this matter will be disappointed with the result. If the consultations in Nyasaland are not equally far advanced, I can certainly say that they are in no way being held back by the existence of federation.
My predecessor, Lord Chandos, described the problem in Nyasaland as searching "for something unusual and exotic" to solve the need in what is still a transitional period. That work is still proceeding, and I hope before long to be able to say something about the progress made.
In conclusion, I should like to say to the House that I believe that this Bill will prove to be an important step in the growth of partnership. I agree with the Federal Government that a common roll system, in which members of all races participate in the election of all Members, will be of the greatest value in encouraging political discussion in the Federal Assembly and the country at large and to be based on party political lines and not on racial lines. This must conduce to partnership in the real sense, whereas if we pursued only communal representation this would only lead to the separation of the races.
I hope that all those who have had some doubts about this Bill will have found in my rather lengthy explanation

the answers to some of their fears, and that the House will give unanimous support to this brave attempt in the field of partnership.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I think all of us are obliged to the Government for affording the House the opportunity of discussing the Electoral Bill of Central Africa. I think the Secretary of State has given us a fair exposition of the Bill, but I must say that I deplore the fact that the Government have reached their decision to recommend this Bill for the signature of the Sovereign before the debate in this House has taken place. The Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, has completely identified himself both with the Bill and with the Federal Government, and I think that is most unfortunate.
I do not wish this evening to exploit party political feeling, but I do want, on behalf of the Labour benches, to demonstrate clearly with arguments that, instead of this Bill being a brave attempt, as the Secretary of State described it, to establish the principle of partnership, it is in our judgment the negation of partnership. Its practical effects are discriminatory, and, if the signature of the Sovereign is given to it, it will intensify bitter feeling in Africa which will undermine still further African confidence in Britain, in the Federation and in the work of the African Affairs Board. For these reasons, I want to advance arguments to support those assertions.
It is quite true that, technically, the Bill is not a constitutional Bill. This Parliament left it to the Federal Government to enact a Measure concerned with the franchise, provided, of course, that there was the requisite majority in the House of Assembly, and provided too, that the signature of the Secretary of State in London was forthcoming. Parliament here surrendered its own power in regard to this very important political Measure, but this Parliament still has a genuine interest, not only in the Constitution of the Federation, but in the position and the welfare of protected persons inside the Federation.
It was we who put the principle of partnership in the preamble of the Constitution. We emphasised the protected status of the inhabitants of at least two of the three territories involved, and we


made an attempt to write into that Constitution certain safeguards on behalf of the African populations in these territories.
It is vitally important that we should appreciate the significance of the Bill to the African people, because it sets the pattern of African participation in the political life of Central Africa for a very long time to come. It is a pity that we could not wait for the general discussion of experience under the Constitution before the Bill was introduced.
There is one other thing I want to say by way of introduction to my criticism of the Bill. Whatever may be the difficulties of Ministers in Central Africa, and it is a situation created by the imposition of Federation on Central Africa, we as Members of Parliament here cannot in this matter be subject to political blackmail respecting the pattern of African development or the place of the African in the political life of Central Africa. The Constitution Amendment Bill left us a few months ago very uneasy. We felt that the African Affairs Boards had been treated in a somewhat shabby way. We thought, too, that the House of Assembly would now prove to be dominated by racial interests, particularly European, and we felt very unhappy about the changed way in which Africans were to be elected or selected for the additional seats arising out of the enlarged House of Assembly.
We now know what the electoral arrangements are to be for the election and selection of the new House. May I put it to the Secretary of State that those of us who are critical of the Bill are not so indolent as not to read its contents? The societies with which we are associated are not so profoundly ignorant as to pass judgment upon something without having some knowledge of wht they are proposing.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly did not have in mind any society to which the right hon. Gentleman is attached, but if he could sometimes look through my postbag he would find bodies the existence of which he probably does not know about, and which, I am quite certain, have never attempted to master the intricacies of this Bill, but yet are quite dogmatic about It That is all I wanted to say.

Mr. Creech Jones: I suggest that it is frequently one of the tricks of debate to suggest that one's opponents know little or nothing about the problem with which they are concerned.
Let us examine the Bill. Let us remember that there are roughly 7 million Africans, two-thirds of whom are protected persons, living in their own countries—countries which have not been subject to conquest by this country. As compared with the 7 million Africans there are 275,000 Europeans—roughly one twenty-fifth of the number of Africans. The Europeans inhabiting the three territories are there primarily for the purpose of making a livelihood. Many of them have no roots in the country, although they have been conceded political power. In the case of two of the three territories, many of them entered knowing full well that the territories enjoyed protected status. The government of those States must therefore be a question for determination by this Parliament.
The Secretary of State takes the view that it is a good conception of partnership to give the Europeans, whose numbers are only one twenty-fifth of the African population, 42 out of the 57 seats in the House of Representatives and, in addition, to give them full control without a seat to Africans in the Cabinet of the Federation. This European minority is put in permanent possession of government. On the general roll for election to the House of Assembly there will be 81,000 Europeans and, possibly, 2,500 Africans. That is what we are told to accept as partnership.
How is the right to be placed on the general roll secured? First, we must bear in mind that the average income of the European is £1,100 per year and that of the African in employment £70 per year. A person is eligible for registration upon the general roll if he receives £720 per year and is literate; £480 a year and has completed a primary course of education, or £300 a year and has had four years of secondary education. With those qualifications a person can become one of the 81,000 who have the right to vote.
It is obvious that in the present state of African development the imposition of such qualifications and conditions makes it virtually impossible for Africans


to qualify for the general roll and thus have the right to vote in the election of 42 of the members in this small Chamber. They are too poor, and they are not sufficiently educated. They cannot hope to achieve the qualifications now required for admittance to the general roll.
The Federal Government admit this lack of balance and inequality, and shelter behind the argument that with the passage of time the practical effect must be for Africans to influence the elections and possibly secure the election of African Members, although it is admitted that the vast majority of the people on the general roll are at present Europeans. The Federal Government say, "The Africans must wait for the economic development of the country." If they are to do that they will have to wait for an indefinite period.
How can we ever hope for fast progress by the Africans towards the attainment of the high standard of qualification needed for the general roll when they are repressed by segregation principles, colour bars, the denial of trade union rights, and a whole series of other discriminatory clauses, and have poor facilities for education? Sir Roy Welensky, and Lord Malvern before him, made it perfectly plain to the Africans—and certainly to the Europeans—that it was very unlikely that the Africans would assume any definite place in the political life of the country for 100 years.
In the meantime, the European community has possession of the machinery of government. Political ascendancy in the political life of Central Africa is established. The Africans have no influence whatsoever in the election of the ordinary Members. No elected European need pay the slightest attention to African opinion. Europeans dominate the general roll, and the Africans are virtually nowhere. Upon this basis an African will never sit in the Federal Parliament as the representative of a constituency in Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia.
Democracy is an excellent thing for the Europeans, but it presumably cannot work for those people who are under their subjection. But that is not all. The Secretary of State has not mentioned that at present an African in Southern Rhodesia may qualify for the roll if he is in receipt of £240 a year. As a result

of the proposals, however, such an African will have to be in receipt of £300 a year. Before these proposals, an African British subject in Northern Rhodesia could qualify for the election roll if he were in receipt of an income of £200; as a result of the proposal he will qualify only if he has an income of £300 a year. The African is therefore in a very much worse position in relation to the ordinary roll.
In justification of these proposals, we have been told that although the Africans have not done so well in the Federal arrangements they are in a good position in regard to the territorial Governments. I am glad that the Secretary of State announced that before long the Constitutions of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be overhauled and that we need not be unduly apprehensive about the result of that review. The Government have been very slow in achieving these vitally important changes.
In excusing this Bill the Government cannot argue that the Africans have little or no interest in Federation affairs. After all, the Federation Government are responsible for the economic development of the Territory and for the standard of life enjoyed by the people there. A number of public services come under their direction. Therefore, their policy is as vital to the interests of the Africans as to the Europeans. It is silly even to suggest that it does not matter over much about the Federation Government; that we shall look after the Africans by representation on the territorial Governments, but we need not worry regarding the Federation because the Federation is not so vitally concerned with African interests.
The Federation Parliament holds the key to future changes in the franchise. It should not be forgotten when considering a Chamber where the largest element comes from Southern Rhodesia, that it was in Southern Rhodesia that the qualifications for the franchise were raised only a few years ago in such a way as to make it almost prohibitive for the Africans to engage in the political life of the Colony. I submit that a constitutional and electoral set-up such as this is, in practice, neither partnership nor non-discriminatory.
We are told that the Africans are being introduced to political life. At the


moment it is alleged that they are immature and inexperienced. What is their place in this introduction to political life in the Federation? As the Secretary of State reminded us, the Constitution provides for twelve African seats. Four of these seats are filled by direct election by Africans and now instead of two, as was previously the case, eight of the seats are to be filled by Africans on a special roll, plus all the Europeans and a few Africans who may have been put on the general roll. This means that eight of the twelve African representatives—we must remember there are only to be twelve African representatives—are elected by a combination of voters from the general and the special rolls.
That means that eight out of twelve seats will be occupied by Africans who are not necessarily the direct representatives of those Africans who are on the special roll. They are responsible not only to Africans, but also to Europeans. This means that these representatives will always be looking over their shoulder because they are responsible to European electors as well as to the African voters. Let us examine the special roll. It lays down that if an African or anybody else receives £150 a year and is literate, or if he receives £120 a year and has had two years' secondary education, he may be put on the special roll. That roll also contains those protected persons who can fulfil these qualifications.
It has not been disputed that when the attempt was made to win Africans over to the cause of Federation they were told that they would elect their own spokesmen who would sit in the Parliament of the Federation. The principle of communal representation was written into the Constitution, and at least four of the Africans were directly elected by Africans and represent only the Africans. But now, as I have already said, at least eight of the Africans will not be fully representative of the Africans. They are also representatives of the Europeans. Even those African seats will be eliminated altogether as—should it ever happen—Africans are elected on the ordinary roll. Africans who have voted on the special roll for the seats which will be eliminated because Africans have been returned on the ordinary roll will become disfranchised.
It should be noted that even to get on this special roll the qualification includes the ability to speak, read, write and comprehend the English language. Every native African must learn the English language and speak it, write it and comprehend it in order to get on the roll. His vernacular does not matter at all. He has to learn English. I suggest that to debar a man in his own country from the right to play a part in the political life of that country merely because he cannot speak a foreign or a second language is absolutely monstrous. I am sure that were such conditions imposed on us, this House would not tolerate it for a moment. But that is the qualification, and we do not know how many Africans will qualify for the special roll.
The Secretary of State seemed unable to say who was to apply the test. The Government of the Federation will apply the test to see which Africans shall go on the register. Their registering office will do that. Again, I suggest, that is a preposterous proposition.
We are asked to believe that this Measure is generous because protected persons for the first time have the right to vote. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies will turn up the records of his own office, he will discover that when I happened to hold his office it was one of my purposes that, when the process of political evolution in Northern Rhodesia had been completed, protected Africans should enjoy the vote. There is hardly a Protectorate in Africa or elsewhere where the rights of citizenship are not enjoyed. Therefore, we were doing nothing exceptional or preposterous. The whole of the West Coast of Africa is protected territory. Do we deny Africans the right to vote? Why make such a virtue of it in Central Africa?
Moreover, the Federal Government admitted that it was inevitable that the vote should be given to the Africans in the Northern Territories. They said that it would be unfair to differentiate between Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I have said before to the Under-Secretary of State that it really fills me with indignation when I think that we can concede political rights to Europeans who come into a territory temporarily for a livelihood, with no intention of making their roots in the territory, and yet we deny it to the


people whose country it is, and whose home and livelihood are there.
We concede it to the European merely because of the colour of his skin, although he is only a temporary occupant of the place knowing that he has come into a protected territory. What is the good of talking about this wonderful privilege of allowing protected persons to vote? It just makes nonsense.
We are accused of perpetuating the communal principle. This is very odd. The leader writer of The Times, in a somewhat pontifical way, says that the Bill makes for integration rather than segregation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That appears to be the view also of some Government supporters. No one dislikes communal representation more than myself, but let us examine the effects in Central Africa. First of all, the Africans are denied admission to the general roll. They cannot qualify. It is impossible for them for eternity ever to get there. The whole political machine is in the control of Europeans, possibly again for ever.
Is it not desirable, therefore, that the principle of communal representation during this stage of the political evolution of Central Africa should be emphasised? Must we seek to run away from the right of Africans who are denied the normal privileges of political expression? Must we run away by saying, "No, you must take your chance with the Europeans, although we know that that chance is hopelessly remote"? Moreover, what is the position of the Central African Federation political machine? It is a machine which serves certain communal interests, and they are European.
If it is wise and proper for the Europeans to be in possession of government, then it is right and proper for communal representation to be conceded to the Africans. They have to fight legislation on segregation, colour bars, industrial rights, limited education, and so on. If they have to fight those things in order to secure the abolition of all this discrimination, it becomes important that they should be able to express their voice strongly and effectively in the House of Assembly. Therefore, this argument about communal representation and that we seek to perpetuate it, is nonsense in this stage of political evolution.
What is really behind all this? The Government tell us that it is important that political control should be in civilised and responsible hands. That seems to be the nub of the Federal Government's case. Civilisation is equated with white supremacy. If one is an African, one is uncivilised, one is irresponsible. That is the logic of the argument.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the right hon. Member is not attributing these ludicrous ideas to me.

Mr. Creech Jones: They are ludicrous ideas which, it seems, the Secretary of State, by the policy of the Government, is upholding.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The right hon. Member is just pouring out hatred against the Europeans.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am pouring out no hatred to Europeans or anyone else. It is just nonsense to say that. If the White Paper published by the Federal Government is read, what I have said will be seen to be quite true. The purpose of the Bill is to retain the Government in civilised and responsible hands; that is to say that Europeans are civilised and Africans are uncivilised. I suppose that civilisation and responsibility are equated with colour bars, pass laws, restricted education, segregation and all the other things which afflict the Administration and the policies in Central Africa.
Indeed, I suppose it is civilisation which says to Africans, "African Members of Parliament, if you wish to sleep or dine you have to get six miles away from the House of Assembly." It is a preposterous thing. I suppose that the men who tended Livingstone and who took his body to the coast when he died, were uncivilised. Do we apply these tests to the Europeans in regard to civilisation and responsibility? Of course we do not. This was the old cry of the decadent reactionaries of our own country when the people of this country were struggling for political reform.
We always understood and quoted the phrase of the previous Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Chandos, that the African Affairs Board was an impregnable safeguard for the Africans, but I suppose that the Board cannot assume any great importance so long as it is left in the dark when policies are made


between Salisbury and London. It can bring no redress in respect of discriminatory practices if it is continuously ignored. If it finds a Bill is differentiating, judging from the two last experiences, the Secretary of State upholds the Federal Government as against the African Affairs Board. Again, partnership is made synonymous with European ascendancy and supremacy.
The second point I make is that the election of Africans to remain protected persons is indeed very touching. They still have a pathetic faith in the protective power of Britain and are not prepared to accept the offer, which was recently made in the Nationality Bill, of becoming British citizens as citizens of the Federation. That suspicion, that distrust, speaks volumes. We know that the Africans are not happy about the Federation, which was imposed upon them. Hoping that perhaps the African Affairs Board was at least some safeguard, they have now become steadily disillusioned with the whole policy of Federation and are themselves at this moment agitating for complete dismemberment in 1960.
I am certain that the Government here will not be in office in 1960 when this difficult problem of the future of the Federation has to be decided, but I warn the House that this Measure is but one factor in the increasing bitterness of feeling by Africans in regard to Federation. In 1960 we shall be faced with a most serious problem, a crisis which will affect not only Africa, but the Commonwealth as a whole. African confidence is being destroyed. A letter in the Manchester Guardian this morning, signed by African students from many countries in Africa—potential leaders of African opinion in the days to come—gives ample evidence of how that confidence is being destroyed.

Sir Ian Fraser: Did not the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who is sitting beside the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), start this Federation job?

Mr. Creech Jones: That has absolutely nothing to do with the problem under discussion at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, let me tell him that in the thirties, although I

suppose it is all forgotten by hon. Members opposite, a Royal Commission was sent out to Central Africa to inquire into the possibilities of Federation and amalgamation. That Royal Commission recommended that no such steps should be taken. In any case, the question was terribly alive back in the thirties and the Royal Commission reported, I think in 1939, against it. So it has nothing to do with this. The seed of Federation was planted long before the Labour Government came to power. [Laughter.] Do not laugh; it is a statement of fact. I hope right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite know a little of the history of the problems they are expected to handle.
It is no good asking that we should rely on the good sense of the Europeans in the days to come. Power corrupts; that is evident in the crisis in Southern Rhodesia of the last week or so. It is evidenced in the whole story of the Union of South Africa in recent years. We cannot trust people to do things which are our responsibility. Therefore, I think it unfortunate that we have had no indication from the Government as to the lines along which Africans should go in the Federation. Nor have we had any indication as to what the Government conceive should be the political objective of the Federation. Are they prepared to give encouragement to the idea of the establishment of political democracy, or do they want what they call multi-racial Government—multi-racial Government for partnership, which is a perfectly meaningless term.
I am not pleading at this stage for universal suffrage, nor am I pleading for a fully-fledged Parliamentary democracy, but I say that the future of Central Africa is dependent on the full co-operation of the people there. It is equally important to the European as to the African that there should be understanding, friendship and good will between the peoples. I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider the Bill. Although it makes limited concessions to a limited number of Africans, in the main the Bill fetters on the Africans a form of Government which for generations to come they can never break. Therefore, it is important that we should ask the Federal Government to take this matter back and reconsider it. We ask the Government to


recommend that the next election in the Federation shall be on the old basis so that the whole question can come into review at the 1960 conference.
I am concerned about the future of Central Africa, about the welfare of the Africans there as well as the development of European civilisation. I suggest that political arrangements of this kind are discriminatory and defeat the very purpose we have declared in the Preamble of the Constitution, partnership between the races.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: If the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) believes that the term "partnership" is a meaningless one, I hope he will agree that the future of the Federation depends on co-operation between European and African in that territory. I believe that the speech he has just delivered, more than anything else will damage the widespread liberal feeling which exists among Europeans in the Federation.
I say that for three main reasons. First, the right hon. Member gave the impression that he takes his stand on numbers and is of the opinion that because the Africans are large in numbers they must have control without any form of qualification. The right hon. Member certainly gave me to understand that he considered that a large number of Europeans had no roots in that territory, but he knows perfectly well that a vast number of Europeans regard Rhodesia as their home and their children's home. He also gave me the impression in the middle of his speech that he believes in the continuance of communal representation. For those three reasons he will have done much damage to liberal European opinion, on which so much depends in the future.

Mr. Creech Jones: I said I regarded communal representation as important and necessary in this stage of the political evolution of Central Africa. I said that large numbers of Europeans have not got their roots permanently in the country. That is perfectly true in the vast mining areas of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: The right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast number of British subjects, as opposed to Afrikaner, in the territory consider that country to be their home, and their children's home.
We really must regard the situation as it actually is. The right hon. Gentleman knows that 70 or 80 years ago cities like Salisbury and Bulawayo did not exist, and that the economy and progress of the Federation have depended on the Europeans. He knows, too, how much that has done to improve the standard of living of all races. He knows that there is plenty of good will among the Europeans and belief in partnership, but I do not disguise that there is also fear when they see the mass of Africans and know what would happen to the Federation if European control was swamped.
On the African side, there is a number of educated Africans who can stand as equals with any Europeans in the Federation, but the mass of Africans are still fiddled with witchcraft. They are in their tribal state, and lack education, and until they can be educated and brought to reasonable standards the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect the Europeans to risk the whole of their future, and the future of the Africans themselves.
I believe that a great disservice that has been done to the Africans has been done by their so-called friends, who tell them that what is needed is the vote; that what really matters is the franchise. I say that what really matters is the raising of their present standards of living. What we want to do, I hope, is to encourage the economy of the Federation so that the Africans can have an ever-rising standard of living.
As they get that, plus education, plus welfare, and plus health service, they will be in a position, as everyone in this House, I am sure, would wish to see, to exercise—as they will have to and wish to—an increasing control over the affairs of that multi-racial State—

Mr. John Stonehouse: Would the hon. Member agree, then, that the African workers must be given every opportunity to engage in skilled jobs?

Mr. Wall: There is excellent technical education, though to a limited degree, in the Federation. Schools such as Hodgson and Doubashawa are producing skilled craftsmen, but in limited numbers. I should like to see the introduction of an apprenticeship system; indeed, a start has been made last year in Nyasaland.

Mr. Stonehouse: Then will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that, in the Federation, an African cannot be a skilled railway worker or hold a rank higher than that of cleaner, although, in the neighbouring Belgian Congo, Africans have been found perfectly well fitted for the job, and are doing the job?

Mr. Wall: Certainly, I would say that some European trade unions in the Federation are examples of, possibly, the most reactionary European opinion out there. But I believe that that will alter in the next few years.
If I may, I will now turn to the Electoral Bill, now before the House. The Federal Government have produced a memorandum on this Measure, which most hon. Members will have had. The key to the whole Bill is in paragraph 18 of the memorandum, which reads:
Whatever view may be taken of the question as to whether the Bill is a differentiating measure, the issue is now the merits of the Bill as a whole: whether its beneficial features do not vastly outweigh the differentiation aspect.
I go a certain way with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield in believing that certain aspects of the Bill are differentiating, but I also believe that its merits far outweigh its demerits. I believe that it will help the African to make his voice heard more and more effectively in Federation affairs. It doubles the number of African seats in the Federation Parliament. It introduces a common roll in the Northern Territory. And what, to me, has not been emphasised sufficiently is that, after this Bill becomes law, 56,000 Africans will have a say in the political future of the Federation, whereas only 1,000 have that say today—

Mr. J. Johnson: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that over 50,000 Africans will have a say in electing, at the most, five or six Africans. Will he justify the fact that such a small number have to go to the top tier and help to elect the 44 Europeans? That is the crux of the whole question.

Mr. Wall: I hope to deal with that point later, but what I am now saying is that, though there are demerits in the Bill at the moment, only 1,000 Africans have a vote, and when the Bill is passed 56,000 Africans will have a vote. Therefore, one must, at least, admit that that

is progress, even if one does not think that the progress is fast enough.
I will deal now with the point put forward by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Johnson). Could this Bill have been a better one? I believe that it could, but I also believe that some of the arguments advanced against it are fallacious. The point that the Africans control only four seats was proved wrong in the debate we had here on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. We know that two new members from Nyasaland will be elected by a majority of African votes. We know that the two from Northern Rhodesia will probably be elected on an equality of votes at the next Election, but by a preponderance of African votes at the following one. We also know that, in Southern Rhodesia, four members will be elected by 28,000 more African votes than at the last election. Surely that gives the Africans a much better voice in political affairs.

Mrs. White: I should like to get this right on the record. The numbers in Northern Rhodesia are purely conjectural, as was emphasised again and again in the Federal debates. When the figures were given by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in our previous debate, I was so much puzzled that I wrote to his Department, asking on what they were based. I received a note from the Under-Secretary which said that the figure he had used was a purely wild guess.

Mr. Wall: I think that the hon. Lady will agree that all the figures we are using on the electoral question are, to a certain degree, guesswork, but my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary made it quite clear, and repeated today what he said previously, that in Northern Rhodesia the balance between the European voter and the African voter in the election of these two new African members will very probably he equal at the next election, with African predominance in the election following. That has been repeated time and time again, and I am prepared to take it as a fact—provided that the Africans and indeed the Europeans bother to vote. One hopes that they will do much better than was the case in Kenya.
Another argument advanced against this Bill is that neither the special nor


the general roll is a common roll. Well, those rolls are only a start. We are starting legislation that will not mature properly for some ten years or so but, as a start, and using approximate figures again, we have on the general roll some 1,500 Africans, mainly chiefs and the like, with special qualifications, and a certain number of the richer and better-educated Africans. At least, we have both Europeans and Africans on the general roll.
Again, I have been told, that there will be a number of Europeans, probably about 400, who will not qualify for the general roll and may qualify only for the special roll. Therefore, even on the lower roll, we have to a certain, although a limited, degree, a common roll. There is, therefore, introduced the principle—which I believe hon. Members on both sides will support very strongly—of a common roll in the Federation where there is not one today.
I come now to two other criticisms that have been levelled against this Measure. First, it is said that the qualification of £720 per annum is too high. That was done deliberately, with an eye to the future. If the economy of the Federation increases, and the standard of living of the Africans increases, as we hope it will in the future, many Africans will reach that qualification and will vote on the general roll. But if the qualification is lowered now, the roll could well be swamped by Africans in the immediate future, which, I suggest, would be to the detriment of the whole Federation.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why this monetary or income qualification should obtrude into the matter of giving political freedom to the Africans?

Mr. Wall: It is not only monetary, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is also educational. If one takes the educational qualification with the monetary qualification and makes certain additions for chiefs and the like there will be a reasonable degree of intelligent and educated Africans—if they have made money they are intelligent—who will have a say in the future of the country.
I agree with the criticism made about the European on the general roll also voting on the special roll. I agree that it is a great pity. I would much rather

see the adoption of the Southern Rhodesian system, where, once an African is qualified either on the general or special roll, he then votes for African or European members. The House must recognise that that system could not be adopted while there were Federal members elected specially to represent African interests.
I would rather see, if constitutionally possible, that system abolished and the Southern Rhodesian system adopted; but even in those circumstances there has to be a safeguard, which is that when the special roll reaches 20 per cent. of the general roll it will be closed. Many in the Federation feel that the general roll will increase so fast due to European immigration, improved education, and the earning capacity of the African, that the point when the special roll reaches 20 per cent. will not be reached for many years to come. I believe that that is a better way than the one the Federal Government have chosen.
The Bill could be assumed to be differentiating, but its assets far outweigh its defects. That is the reason why I would support it. I would like to put a point to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the position of the African Affairs Board. Will he emphasise once again the point made by the Secretary of State, that it has fulfilled its duty? It has indicated its disappointment with the Bill and ensured that it will be given wide publicity and wide debate. This question of franchise has been debated twice in the House of Commons, has appeared in the Press, and has been debated widely in the Federation.
That is the function of the African Affairs Board. It is not its function to say that legislation shall or shall not be passed. It would be an abrogation of the duty of government, either by the Federal Government or by this House, if the African Affairs Board were given the power to say that a Measure was differentiating and, therefore, should not be passed. Hon. Members opposite would agree that that would be a negation of government. I would like my hon. Friend to emphasise that the Board has done its job and has earned the respect of all sides, both in this House and in the Federation. I hope he will make it clear that its prestige in this


House and in this country is higher than it ever was before.
May I deal briefly with the reason why one cannot hope to get a more liberal franchise at present. The reason is fear of electoral defeat by the Government of the Federation and of a more reactionary European party taking over. That is a very justifiable fear. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield referred to certain recent happenings in Southern Rhodesia. It was felt, perhaps, in some parts that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia might be going a little too fast in his liberal policy. I am sorry that Mr. Todd has resigned but I believe that Southern Rhodesia has found an excellent compromise, and that hon. Members on both sides would wish the new Prime Minister, Sir Edgar Whitehead, well, particularly having studied the balance in his Cabinet, which looks as though the Liberal tradition of Mr. Todd will be continued.
It would be very dangerous if one overthrew this Bill because one hoped to get something more liberal. I do not think that it is possible to get anything more liberal at present.
What does the Opposition propose to do? We have heard a great deal from them in opposition to the Bill. We have not heard one suggestion as to what they would do if they were in power. Would they go back to the old franchise?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is not the duty of this House to suggest what the electoral arrangements in Central Africa should be. Our duty is fulfilled so far as we pass judgment on what they do and try to suggest to the Secretary of State whether he should approve or not approve. It is not for us to do the constructive thinking, although it does not follow that we have not done it. If the Federal Government would like to have the benefit of our thought in this matter we can easily supply it.

Mr. Wall: Let me accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement at its value. He is saying, "We do not like this Bill. Therefore, if we were in government, we would not allow it." What situation would he then create? The House has passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, but has rejected the franchise. What is the position of the Federal Government

or the Federal Prime Minister? There is only one alternative, and that is to go to the country; and if he does that it will have to be on an anti-Westminster ticket that would set up a chain reaction which would have disastrous consequences for future relations between this country and the Federal Government and for the whole future of the Federation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would not advocate such a course.

Mr. J. Johnson: This is a completely impossible position. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that if we wish to curb, change or alter the Acts of Parliament in Salisbury we are being politically blackmailed, the suggestion being that they will then go to the country and there will be an Afrikaner or Dominion Party Government in the place of the present Federal Government. What a shocking thing.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman has to take facts as they are and the world as it is. If we were to reject the Bill what would be the possible reaction of the Federal Government? Could they bring in a more liberal franchise? I doubt it. If they could, I would give my support. I believe that the only possibility left to the Prime Minister would be to go to the country. The result of that election inevitably would be that the new Government would be more reactionary than the present one.
I would like to refer to another key paragraph in the Federal Government's memorandum. Paragraph 23 reads:
The system offers a workable solution within the framework of existing constitutional arrangements to the twin problems of preserving political control in civilised and responsible hands and of associating the emergent African with the processes of government".
The Federation, particularly Southern Rhodesia, is growing up. It has been built on partnership and I believe that both the Europeans and Africans in the Federation believe in partnership. Our duty here is to do as much as we can to help them in encouraging that feeling. We have to be careful not to interfere too directly, because we would then only encourage the reactionary element in both races and be helping the extremists.
I hope that the Bill will become law because it represents an advance of the Africans, although it may not be as great


an advance as hon. Members on both sides had hoped. I hope that we shall then hear no more about Federal politics and Federal franchise until 1960. The House can then get down to considering how then can best help the Federation in the economic difficulties that lie ahead—with the price of copper under £200 when it was over £400—so as to raise the standard of the African people and give them the housing, welfare and education that they need.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: Before the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) dealt with figures and began to analyse them, he made a very interesting and illuminating statement which showed very clearly to us his attitude of mind and his outlook upon these matters. He belittled the franchise; he said, "Why talk about things like that? What really matters is the standard of life". I tell the hon. Gentleman that, spiritually and mentally, he belongs to pre-1832. We on this side of the House realise that the standard of life would be kept low and a distinction would be drawn between one man and another unless there were the franchise.

Mr. Wall: I believe that the standard of life is important at the present stage to the African, but the franchise will be important at the next stage, and he had better be encouraged in economic development at the moment.

Mr. Davies: I am pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that, if he will but look at history, especially the history of this country, he will see that we did not improve the standard of life or education or attain the Welfare State until we had the franchise. Really, carrying the hon. Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion, he would not even give these people a Constitution at all. He would say that they would be very much better off if they took their guidance from him and not among themselves.
Matters of detail and the answer to the speech made by the Secretary of State have been so fully and effectively dealt with by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) that I am anxious to know what the reply is to be. If I may say so, I have never heard the right hon. Member for Wakefield make

a more effective speech than he did tonight.
This is a vital Bill. Outwardly, it refers only to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, but the fact is that today any legislation for any part of Africa affects all Africa, not just the particular part. All Africa today is watching. In a very short time, depending upon who is in office, the House will be asked to deal with legislation relating to neighbouring States, for the Federation is adjacent to many other parts of Africa which have yet to be dealt with. Uganda, Kenya, Bechuanaland, across to the West Coast perhaps to Sierra Leone, Gambia and the rest—they will be watching what happens with regard to the Federation.
Not merely will they watch what we said we were doing and what were our words, but they will watch what happened after we had given the Constitution. It is not necessary for us merely to be fair; it is necessary also for us to give the impression to Africa that we mean to be fair. Africans will judge us by their view of what we do and not by our interpretation of any particular Act of Parliament.
In what he said when he referred to the last two Articles in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Order in Council, it may be that the Secretary of State gave—and it may be that the House has given itself in the past—the true legal interpretation of those few provisions, but what is far more important is what Africans believed they were getting when those Articles were written. They must not be disappointed either by what the Government do or by the interpretation which may be put upon these matters by the House.
I want to confine myself tonight to one matter only, namely, the action taken by the African Affairs Board and its report. Before I actually come to that, I will remind the House of exactly what is the power of the African Affairs Board and what are the functions which it performs. These matters are set out in Article 71 of the Constitution:
It shall be the particular function of the Board to draw attention to any Bill introduced in the Federal Assembly or any instrument which has the force of law and is made in exercise of any power conferred by a law of the Federal Legislature if that Bill or instrument is in their opinion a differentiating measure.


In the opinion of the majority of members of the African Affairs Board, this is a differentiating measure. What is meant by the expression a "differentiating measure" is defined in the second part of Article 71:
In this article and in the subsequent provisions of this Chapter of this Constitution, the expression 'differentiating measure' means a Bill or instrument by which Africans are subjected or made liable to any conditions, restrictions or disabilities disadvantageous to them to which Europeans are not also subjected or made liable, or a Bill or instrument which will in its practical application have such an effect.
The African Affairs Board has decided just that; it has decided that this is a Measure disadvantageous to Africans within the Federation. However much hon. Members opposite may analyse the figures or whatever hopes they may express as to what may be the voting power later on, the African Affairs Board pinpoints now the fact that
The proportion of voters' control of members of the Federal House is being altered from 29 to 4 in the old House to 49 to 4 in the new House. These figures disregard"—
and the Board goes on to explain how members may be elected not by Africans alone but by Europeans plus Africans, with an overwhelming majority of Europeans. The Board points out that this arrangement is disadvantageous to Africans as compared with Europeans, and that is the really important point.
As I said before, all Africa is watching. I cannot do better, in discussing this particular point, than quote from what was said in the House on 6th May, 1953, when we were debating this very matter. A speech had been made by Mr. Lyttelton, as he was then, and he was followed by the Leader of the Opposition, then Mr. Attlee, who said:
This is very important, because I found one of the difficulties in talking with Africans was their distrust of paper safeguards, and the reason for that was what the Malan Government were doing with regard to the Entrenched Clauses. This brings us to the point that we all realise. We are dealing here with a problem not merely of certain parts of Africa but the broad African problem in relation to the African people and the Europeans.
I cannot stress too much the importance of what has been done in South Africa, because this does carry, as everybody knows right throughout the Continent. That may be the difficulty of talking of safeguards, because they say, 'What is the good of safeguards if they

can be disregarded?' There is, I think, another unfortunate circumstance arising out of the course of events. If we look at it from the point of view of the Africans, there is a great contrast between the African whose opinion is not taken and the European whose opinion is taken in a plebiscite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 422–3.]
In that vein, one can read further extracts which also are very effective.
This is what I am pointing out to the Government today. Here is an opinion by the very Board which they announced to the Africans, and, of course, to the House, as the protection for Africans against any future change which may affect their rights. It may be said that this is not a Constitution Bill, but it affects the rights of Africans in the Constitution as voters. Here is the very body which the Government proudly announced from that Box would safeguard the interests of Africans, saying, by a majority, "We are of opinion that this Measure is disadvantageous to Africans, and we therefore ask that certain action be taken with regard to it." I should have thought that such a thing was vital.
I say again that all Africa will be watching. How much regard will Africans be able to give to safeguards which are paper safegaurds? How much better would it be to maintain the proud tradition of this old country and say, "We have given our word, and we will carry it out whatever the consequences." Instead of that they are saying, "Oh, well, we are improving in this way and that."
What these people want is what we were hoping they would have. We were hoping that gradually they would be able to take more and more part within the constitution in the conduct of their own affairs of their own people in their own country. Instead of that they are still being subjected not only to the European majority but, in the opinion of the African Affairs Board, to a worse position than that which appertained when the Order in Council was first debated in this House. I would ask the Government to look at this matter again and not to disappoint not only the Africans in Central Africa but Africans throughout that great continent.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) said that all


Africa was watching. That, I am sorry to say, is perfectly true. They are not only watching; they will read the reports of this debate which will add to the troubles that already exist in East and Central Africa. It is helping the extremists on both sides.

Mr. C. Davies: That sort of thing was also said in 1776.

Mr. Baldwin: The people who voted against this Measure in the Federal Assembly were the African Congress extremists who want to get universal suffrage and eventually to drive the Europeans out of Central Africa. They combined with three of the Dominion Party who will have apartheid if they have their way.

Mrs. White: Other members also voted, including Sir John Moffat, who was referred to in such flattering terms by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Baldwin: I have the list of those who voted against the Bill, but I will not read it out now.
What we are doing today is raising all sorts of objections to this Measure which is proposed by liberal-minded Europeans of the Federation. An hon. Member says that that is nonsense. I would remind the House of what has happened in Rhodesia and Central Africa in the last 50 to 60 years. When the Europeans went there the natives had remained undeveloped for anything between 1,000 and 2,000 years. We have brought them along the road to economic development and to an increased standard of life.
I will take up the time of the House for a few minutes to mention a few of the things which have been accomplished in the last 50 years. There are 10,500 African teachers in Southern Rhodesia. Is that not of help to the Africans in Rhodesia? If we wanted to keep them in the ditch should we have developed education as we have done? Three Africans in Nyasaland have posts as education officers with a salary of £1,300 a year. Is that not a development in 50 years amongst Africans who had not developed themselves at all in 2,000 years? In Northern Rhodesia brick-layers, carpenters and storekeepers have reached salaries of £50 a month. New regulations in Southern Rhodesia enable skilled Africans in the engineering industry to earn the top rate of 5s. 4d. an hour,

which is comparable to what the Europeans can earn.
Yet we hear this nonsense talked today that we are not endeavouring to bring the Africans along the road of progress. In the 18 months before Federation the amount spent on the health service in Nyasaland was £248,000, and last year the figure jumped to £662,000. Is that not helping the Africans? There are 400,000 Africans at school in Southern Rhodesia, and efforts are being made to increase the African teaching staff by 1,000 a year. Is that not progress? The people who have done this are the ones who are being condemned here today for what they are doing.

Mr. James MacColl: The hon. Gentleman asks whether that is progress. Can he say whether the fact that in the Copper Belt the proportion of Africans receiving any kind of elementary education has dropped is progress?

Mr. Baldwin: I did not gather what the hon. Member said.

Mr. MacColl: May I try again? In the Copper Belt the proportion of Africans receiving any kind of education at all has dropped from about 50 per cent. to about 30 per cent. Is that progress?

Mr. Baldwin: I do not accept that for one moment. The figures I have read out show the progress that the Africans are making in education. I can quote an African.

Mrs. Castle: Well done.

Mr. Baldwin: He is Mr. Matinga. He said it is not true to say that all Africans are against Federation. He is an important member of the Nyasaland African Progressive Association, which is an association that has come into existence in opposition to Congress, whose members are extremists, and this gentleman said that Congress has become a society for individualists instead of applying itself to the needs of the country.

Mr. J. Johnson: This really is not good enough. Mr. Matinga is in a one-man party in Nyasaland. He is his own party.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not accept that. He is not a one-man party. There is a Progressive Party there, and it is doing a very useful job of work.
What hon. Members are trying to say is that these liberal-minded Europeans who have done so much for the Africans in the last 50 years are endeavouring to keep the Africans subject. What we are doing is driving many of these liberal-minded Europeans to be extremists. We do a very great disservice to Africa by doing that.
We are interfering with legislation passed out there. This House will not indefinitely be permitted to interfere with legislation in Central Africa. Central Africa can stand on its own feet. It is economically viable, and it will not be interfered with by or be subject to the Government in this country. If we proceed as hon. Members on the other side of the House would have us do we shall some day have another Boston tea party. It would not surprise me one little bit.
I quote Lord Malvern in a debate on 8th January in the Federal Assembly. Sir Godfrey Huggins, now Lord Malvern, was the very liberal-minded Premier of Southern Rhodesia for about 23 years, and he brought the Africans along economically and politically. Although any legislation which was passed by the Southern Rhodesian Parliament and which was inimical to the African natives could have been brought to this House, in all those 23 years this House did not have any brought to it at all from Southern Rhodesia. That gives some idea of what the former Sir Godfrey Huggins and his liberal-minded friends have done in Rhodesia.
That is one difference between hon. Members opposite and Lord Malvern, who said that the African must work his passage economically before he advances politically. To hon. Members opposite, everything seems to be an advance politically and not economically. Lord Malvern said in the debate that he was convinced that it would not be possible to put partnership across in the Federal area as long as the Federation's domestic affairs could be discussed in the United Kingdom Parliament. He went on to say:
We are working for the day when there will be complete partnership, and that will come by evolution and not revolution.
Let me quote the Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations, who made a very successful journey through Central

Africa a short time ago. At the end of a speech in Northern Rhodesia, he said:
If only the politicians, having discovered how essential the races are to each other, would leave you alone and allow you to work out your own destiny, socially and economically, then the future of this part of Africa would be assured.
He said that Europeans had been in Africa for many years and intended to stay there and that they would not continue to accept interference from the British Government.
I have said that there are many Africans who are not extremists. They realise what the European has done for them. They are reasonable-minded men. I have quoted Matinga. Let me quote Hove, another African member of the Federal Party, who supported the Bill in the Federal Parliament. He said:
It was an attempt to solve a difficult situation and it was a compromise.
That is the view of a reasonable-minded African who saw what the Bill meant to the African. It is a great increase in the advance of the African to get on to the common roll. As the years go on, more and more Africans will get on that roll, and more and more will the Africans use their strength to see that the legislators are appointed and influenced by their vote.
I will mention another African, the President of the African Association, who joined the Federal Party and who said:
By joining the party, my intention is not to placate Europeans and betray Africans.
Voting against the Bill, there were five in favour of more representation for Africans. They were joined by the Dominion Party, whose views would be likely to lead to apartheid and all the troubles that have arisen in South Africa.
I deplore some of the remarks which have been made in this debate today. I have listened to many debates in this House on African affairs, but I have never heard such bitter remarks as I have heard today. I have never heard speeches that will do more harm to the relationship between the two principal races in Africa. I can only hope that too much notice will not be taken of what has been said in this House, because I am quite sure that the harm which has been done will take some undoing.
I hope that the Government will pass the Bill and that it will soon become an Act in the Rhodesian Federation. It is a great move in helping the African along the road. I have a very great deal of time for the African. I was in African ten weeks before Federation and I met all sections of Africans and formed a great opinion of many of them as being level-minded, sensible men. During the whole of that time, the only occasion when the delegation out there got into trouble was in Nyasaland, when the African Congress leaders forced their way into our conference with the Nyasaland local people and made things thoroughly unpleasant. I was extremely sorry for that, because my impression in Nyasaland was that the relationship between the European and the African was better than in any of the other territories. It would be a very sad thing for Nyasaland if Congress should be able to force some Government—I do not know which one—to let Nyasaland break away from the Federation.

8.34 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We have listened to a most extraordinary speech. As I followed the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), I began to wonder whether words had begun to lose all their meaning. When the hon. Member told us that the Bill we are discussing was proposed by all the liberal-minded Europeans in the Federation, I wondered when he had last been there. I have just come back from the Federation, and one thing that is quite clear to me is that it is the very liberal-minded Europeans—those who are hoping to make multi-racialism work and who genuinely believe in partnership—who are horrified and distressed by this Bill.
The hon. Member told us about the progress that has been made in the conditions of the Africans, and he has quoted certain educational advances in Southern Rhodesia. I am quite prepared to admit that Mr. Garfield Todd has made some progress there. Does the hon. Member, however, think that Mr. Garfield Todd is a great admirer of this Bill? Is the hon. Member not aware that Mr. Garfield Todd is in trouble, and got into trouble at the very moment when Her Majesty's Government made it perfectly clear during our debates last November on the Constitution Amendment Bill that they

were backing the reactionaries on that Bill?
When the Constitution Amendment Bill went through the House of Commons, those in Mr. Garfield Todd's party who were alarmed at the rate of African advance that was being made in Southern Rhodesia and who had been biding their time came into the open. In a matter of weeks, Mr. Garfield Todd was faced with resignations and a revolt. It is the enlightened European opinion inside the Federation that is still hoping at this late hour that this British Parliament might withdraw its approval of the Bill. They are the ones who are alarmed.
When I was in the Federation, I was impressed by the number of Europeans who have realised the dangerous situation in which they live, and who are waiting and longing for a more courageous lead from some of their own politicians. They believe that Sir Roy Welensky has totally misread the mood of the majority of Europeans in their country and, by trying to be a clever, tricky politician, is throwing away the one chance they have to use the short period of time that remains to them to convince Africans that Europeans in the Federation genuinely believe in partnership.
The hon. Member for Leominster talked about liberal opinion. Is he aware that at the annual synod of the Methodist Church in Northern Rhodesia, on 18th January, a resolution was passed, with record unanimity, deploring the Federal Franchise Bill and opposing the proposal that Dominion status be granted to the Federation in two years' time? One of the ministers at the synod went on record as saying that if the great betrayal was ever likely to be perpetrated of Dominion status being given to the Federation on the basis of this kind of franchise and approach to racial relationship, it would be the duty of the Methodist Church in the Federation to come out in open political opposition to the Government. Those who say that are by no means alone.
The Reverend Andrew Doig of the Church of Scotland and Sir John Moffat stand out as typical of the most enlightened European opinion. Why do people like the Reverend Andrew Doig come over here—and other Europeans talk of coming over here—when it is not an easy matter and it takes money and


time? They are coming almost in despair to try to impress upon the British House of Commons that once again in the Central African Federation we are in danger of perpetrating some of the mistakes which we have made in other parts of the colonial empire, leaving us with another disastrous "too late" on our hands.
Let us make no mistake. When we embark upon an attempt to build multiracial government, we embark upon one of the most tricky political experiments in the history of the world. Colour relationships between black and white are tricky and difficult. They are not to be swept away by a few airy words. There are, of course, suspicions and anxieties on both sides, particularly when these colour relationships are bedevilled by a colonial relationship which is, in itself, dynamite for us to handle.
What, then, should be our duty if we want multi-racialism to work, if we want, as we on this side of the House want, to see for the sake of Africans progress made towards a true democracy in which we believe, on a basis that will enable the European to stay there and make his contribution to what is inevitably an African continent? That is the challenge which faces us.
The African needs the European, but he can never accept him on the basis that his need for the European must permanently deprive him of his democratic rights. So there will be a most tricky transitional period, and in it, when one race fears the other, we must begin by recognising that the minority race, the European race, has got overwhelming safeguards and guarantees today in the political and economic power which it enjoys. Underneath that dominant European minority there is the African mass, which I assure this House is growing increasingly cynical, restive and unhappy. There will be an explosion in the Federation, just as there will be in the Union of South Africa, unless we provide the safety valves.
In that situation, if we ask the African to be patient, as we have done endlessly, it is to him that the safeguards must be given and the guarantees made. The European has got them in plenty. The European has got the money, he has got the vote, he has got the Ministers,

and he has got the ear of Her Majesty's Government. What the African is asking for is a very simple thing. He has said, "Let me have the assurance that the protection of the British House of Commons will not be withdrawn by one iota until I am strong enough to stand up to the Europeans out of my own strength."
There is another thing we must not under-estimate. When Federation was imposed upon the Africans against their will, deep damage was done to the whole concept of Federation. When hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us not to make inflamatory speeches which will do so much harm, I say that the biggest harm to the idea of federation was done from the very beginning by hon. Gentlemen opposite, first by imposing it on the African, and then by over-ruling his deep fears. These fears were represented by the Chief I met in Nyasaland, who had come here in 1953, on pennies raised by his own people, to plead against the imposition of federation. He was not listened to then. He was told that there would be safeguards for him. One of them he was guaranteed was that there would be no change in the Constitution detrimental to his interests if that was opposed by the watchdog we gave him in the African Affairs Board.
I say that, if this Measure is agreed to. I personally do not believe that Federation can live and last; not because of any speeches we on this side make; in fact, on the contrary. I have made many speeches inside the Federation trying, for instance, to argue with my friends the Africans in Nyasaland that they needed every kind of economic strength they could get, and suggesting to them that a more positive policy was to use the place of Nyasaland in the Federation, the place of a dominantly African Protectorate, to try to liberalise the rest of the Federation. I said, "Do not be defeatist and talk about secession. Do not give up. Go on and fight for the conditions which will make Federation tolerable to you."
I shall never forget that evening in the Drande Club. The Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had been there before me, so we have all been through the mill of the intensive, highly intelligent African cross-examination there. At the


end of it all, I took a simple test. I said, "I have been told that only those of you who are articulate have expressed opinions and that you misrepresent the views of the rest. If we were to give you federation of the kind you would find tolerable, put up your hands if you would still want to secede" Every hand in the room shot up.
I hope that no one will say, as was said to me in the Federation, "You have been listening to a few agitators," One provincial commissioner told me, when I said that I had not met a single educated African in Nyasaland who was in support of federation, that I had been talking only to the one per cent. and that in the villages they were "very primitive" and were not interested in politics. I replied, "I see. You are building your case for federation on illiteracy."
As a matter of fact, several people who should know told me how wrong he was, people like the missionaries who work day and night in the villages and who are more integrated with the Africans than any politician can be. Every missionary I met throughout the Federation said two things; first, that federation was intolerable to the African on the present terms; and, second, that if the Federal Franchise Bill went through, the last chance of making the African believe that there could be a gradual liberalisation in the Federation and that until then there would be the British House of Commons to act as a safeguard would have gone.
I beg hon. Members tonight just for a moment to put themselves in the skin of the African. I know that some progress is being made, and I am the first to welcome any sign that partnership is becoming a reality. I welcome the breaking down of segregation wherever it may be, whether in the multi-racial university at Salisbury, or anywhere else, but from the speeches we have had from hon. Members opposite tonight we have had an indication of the problem facing us.
We are asked to accept in this Bill an undemocratic principle, and we are told that we have to accept it because there are worse reactionaries waiting behind to take over if we do not. Do hon. Members believe that the Africans do not know that, too? The problem in the Federation, particularly in Southern Rhodesia, is that any progress has to be made by stealth for fear of frightening

the Europeans, but the humiliations to the Africans take place in public and the Africans do not forget.
I shall never forget one Sunday morning in Salisbury when I was going along the main street to post a letter. Along the road there came careering a jeep with a European at the wheel. He wanted to make an illegal U-turn in the wide street, so he pulled in towards a pavement where an African in his Sunday best was enjoying himself on his precious new bicycle. The European drove straight at him until he wobbled almost under the jeep's wheels and the European then leaned out of the window and in my hearing said, "Get out of the way, you black bastard."
I am not pretending that that is representative of every European. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."] I agree that it is disgraceful, but the tragedy in the Federation today is that the liberal European does not like that sort of thing and will say to me privately, "All the good work we have tried to do will be undone in a few moments by persons like that", but will not come out into the open to initiate Government policy to insist on overriding the colour bar in the hotels.
There is not very much time left for us to win the confidence of the Africans, and in this piece of legislation we are unfortunately going the other way. We were challenged on what we would do—did we believe in communal representation? I would be the first to agree that it is better to get rid of special representation of the Africans and to move forward to the non-racial representation of the common roll. We are not doing that in this Bill. In the case of 44 seats out of the 59, the members are to be elected on the general roll, which, by the admission of the Colonial Secretary himself this afternoon, will be a European roll. Therefore, it will be racial representation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is not here at the moment, but I understood him to say that, as is perfectly true, although the African element in the general roll will be small to start with, it would gradually increase and, as a result, it could in no circumstances be regarded as a European roll.

Mrs. Castle: We are dealing with the position now, and do not let us forget that the moment an African looks like catching up on the Europeans there is always some new safeguard introduced.

Mr. Dingle Foot: They raise the qualifications.

Mrs. Castle: We have only to look at the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. The moment an African qualifies, the moment he becomes what the European calls civilised and, therefore, looks like taking his democratic place in their affairs, a new barrier is put up. There is no sign today that the Europeans inside the Federation are prepared to allow the logic of their own definition of democracy to work itself out. The only sign we have got is that they are prepared, and indeed determined, to entrench white supremacy.
Therefore, it is for us to insist, in the name of the British House of Commons, that we here anyway believe in partnership, and that if the Europeans have not by the time 1960 comes won the confidence of the Africans, then it will be quite intolerable to insist on imprisoning a majority of the African people inside a Federation which they hate. The responsibility for making the Africans want federation rests with the Europeans, and the tragedy is that in this Bill we are discussing tonight they have driven one more nail into the coffin of multiracial progress.
When we say that we in the British House of Commons believe in a common roll, that we want non-racial representation and people elected on a non-communal basis, we on this side of the House agree with that, but what is entrenched in this Federal Franchise Bill is a form of common roll which says that Europeans shall vote for Africans but that Africans shall not vote for Europeans. That is, in effect, what we say, and by saying it we bring the whole idea of the common roll and a multi-racial community into contempt.
That is why tonight, if we accept this Bill, we are doing the greatest damage we can to the concept of Federation itself and to the wider concepts of multi-racial partnership, and that will be a great tragedy for Africa.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Hon. Members who have been in this House longer than I have are, I believe, used to hearing violent statements made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), but I was particularly sorry this evening to find that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), for whom I have the greatest respect, seemed to take a leaf out of the hon. Lady's book, and to make a speech that will, I think, cause alarm and despondency among moderates throughout British Africa. He made serious charges against the motives and intentions of the Federal Government. Listening to his words, one would not have thought that in Southern Rhodesia a great drive was in progress for 1,000 extra African teachers every year. When this point was made, one hon. Member opposite referred to the Copper Belt in Northern Rhodesia, and pointed out that in that area the proportion of African children receiving primary education was dropping. We know that there are difficulties over education in the Copper Belt, because of the families which are pouring in from all parts of the Federation, but in the rest of the country more African children than ever before are receiving a primary education, and in its report our own Parliamentary delegation agreed that substantial advances were being made in the rest of Northern Rhodesia.
Having listened to the right hon. Member for Wakefield, one would not have thought that the amount of money spent upon the education of Africans in Nyasaland had trebled since Federation—since the time when he was responsible for the expenditure of money upon African education.

Mr. Creech Jones: Would it interest the hon. Member to know precisely how it happened that the money flowed into Nyasaland?

Mr. Goodhart: It was as a result of Federation, and the increased prosperity of the whole land. Money cannot be spent if one has not got it.
The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the nub of the problem when, in answer to a provocative remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), he explained that his reason for not having made any constructive


suggestion himself was that this was a case of a clear choice between the Bill and the status quo. I want to contrast one or two points contained in the Bill with this status quo. We all want to see more Africans on the electoral roll. The Bill vastly increases the number of Africans on the roll. I would have thought that it would be a severely retrograde step to go back.

Mr. J. Johnson: Does the hon. Member support this vicious and hypocritical two-tier system, whereby 50,000 Africans vote for five or six African members, but have no voice in the election of the other 44 members?

Mr. Goodhart: I want to go into the question of the African constituencies. If we maintained the status quo in Southern Rhodesia we should have a minute percentage of Africans voting for their special African members. Under the system outlined in the Bill, 25 per cent. or 33 per cent. will vote for their special Members. That is an improvement. I am not saying that it is perfect, or good, but it is an improvement, and I challenge any hon. Member opposite to say that it is not.
What was the status quo in Nyasaland on 25th November before my right hon. Friend made his speech? We had the special African members chosen by an electoral college of 21 Africans. Under the new system we shall have an electoral college of over 240 Africans choosing those members who were established before, and we shall have a common roll, with a substantial preponderance of African voters on it for choosing the new members. I suggest that that is a considerable advance from the old position of the members being chosen by 21 people.
In Northern Rhodesia, with the old African members being chosen as they were before, there are two new African members who are to be chosen on a common roll in which we shall have the European and the African electorate roughly in balance. Are we to throw out the whole of this Bill because we object to two members out of the 57 in the new Chamber being chosen by a common electoral roll on which we have, roughly, 50 per cent. Europeans and 50 per cent. Africans?
It could be argued that many Africans will not take up their position on the roll, that they may even be intimidated from so doing. If we do not assume that Africans will take the advantages, one might say the rights, given to them by this Bill, our discussions become completely academic and arid. I believe that there still exists in Africa, in all races, a majority of people who want to see multiracial partnership work. But I fear that on the communal voting rolls these moderate voices are swept aside by the thundering racial hatred. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wakefield that the time has not yet come to abandon communal representation. But surely the time is coming to make some move in experimenting with an elected common roll, and eventually this will be pretty effective in Northern Rhodesia.
We talk about African members of Parliament and suggest they spend their time looking over their shoulders at their electorate. That would appear to be uncomfortable for anyone, but if they do, they will see that half of their electorate, in fact, have African faces.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the hon. Member really happy with the small number of Africans allowed to vote on the top tier for the 44 European seats?

Mr. Goodhart: I am not suggesting that I am happy about that, but it will not be improved by preserving the status quo.
It has often been said by hon. Members opposite that we should wait until 1960, until the statutory revision of the Constitution is made. I suggest that this Bill is an experiment. Almost any Bill dealing with Africa is bound to be an experiment. Almost any Bill dealing with the franchise is bound to be an experiment. Here we have the two thrown together in a sort of franchise soufflé. We should give to those who will have the serious task of reviewing the Constitution in 1960 the opportunity of seeing how this bold step forward in African political advancement will work. I hope and pray that it will work well.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I wish to make three brief points in the few minutes available to me. The first is with reference to the speech of the Secretary of


State. He was at great pains to assure the House that the Bill does not represent a breach of faith with the Africans who came to the constitutional conference in 1953.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech that was made by Sir John Moffat in the Federal Assembly and said that the answer would be found in the provisions of Section 98 of the Constitution. That is not a sufficient reply. It is true that Section 98 is the machinery Clause and provides the machinery whereby constitutional changes can he made, but the fact that that Section is inserted in the Constitution does not in the least mean that no assurances were given and accepted in 1953.
I would remind the House of what was said by Sir John Moffat in the debate in Salisbury:
I declare categorically that had the Government disclosed during those discussions that the compromise reached with such effort and concession would be altered by them unilaterally without conferring, they would never have got the agreement. In point of fact, they might never have got the Federation.
He went on to say:
When this Federation was thrust on an unwilling African population it was the express wish of all the Parties and the Governments at that Federation Conference that the safeguards should be explained to them with regard to the Constitution, and this was done. The African peoples were told in meeting after meeting, of the safeguards which the Constitution contained for them. They were told that they would have their own statesmen in the Federal House, and they were told—mark this well—that they would elect their own spokesmen themselves. We told them these things and we pledged our word that this was so.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I dealt with this in my opening speech, both with the suggestion that certain assurances had been given at the time of the conference and with the suggestion that the Constitution itself prevented any alteration or bound us not to have African members elected by some different system than under Article 13. I have nothing to add to what I said then, which I believe to be the complete answer to what the hon. and learned Member has said.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point. Everybody agrees that there is provision in Section 98 for alterations to the Constitution. We want to know whether assurances were given,

and, if so, what the assurances were. On that point we have had no answer so far from the Government Front Bench.
I would call attention to another aspect, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) referred in passing, and that is the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Bill, which set up the qualifications for voters on the general roll and the special roll. We have heard a good deal about the income qualification of £720 a year and the rest of it. We have not heard quite so much about what comes before the African ever gets to the income and educational qualifications. We find that in order to have the requisite means and educational qualifications to be registered as a voter a claimant
must have an adequate knowledge of the English language and be able, in his own handwriting, to complete and sign the claim form in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
That is to say, two requisites are imposed; first, ability to speak English; and, secondly, literacy. Why on earth are those conditions imposed? They are conditions we do not even seek to impose on electors in this country. I wonder what sort of explosion there would be from hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies if we had such a clause in our legislation.
This House has existed for 700 years, but not until recently have the majority of those who elect us been able to read or write. The great body of those who elected Wilkes for Middlesex and Charles James Fox for Westminster were entirely illiterate, but they knew perfectly well what they were doing. If one goes to West Africa, as I did recently, one may see electors casting their votes quite effectively, although the great majority of them are illiterate. There is no justification for imposing these two tests in addition to all the other qualifications required of the electors.
That is not the only objection to this Bill. There are the various income tests of £720, £400 or £300 plus an educational qualification. We ought to have some explanation of why the income qualification has been raised. In paragraph 9 of the Report of the African Affairs Board we read:
In the election of members to the present Federal House voters from Northern Rhodesia could qualify (if British subjects) on an income of £200 per annum plus simple literacy


while those from Southern Rhodesia required £240 per annum plus knowledge of English plus simple literacy. Under this Bill the monetary qualification for individuals of this educational standard is raised to £720 per annum.
Before we approve of this Bill, we ought to have some explanation of why there has been this stupendous increase.
There is one other matter to which I desire to call attention. We are concerned here not only with the merits or demerits of this Bill; we are concerned with the effect of this Bill, and particularly with its effect upon African opinion. In the long run, it is African opinion that matters, because a minority of 275,000 people cannot for ever ignore the express wishes of the great majority of 7 million. We all have to bear in mind what is going to happen when the Constitution is reviewed in 1960, or it may be rather sooner than that. There can be no possible doubt what the Federal Government want. They want, as soon as they can get it, a transfer of sovereignty. They want full self-government, or Dominion status, whichever we choose to call it. That brings us right back to what I regard as the most important words of all in the present Constitution, the words in the Preamble, which say:
And whereas Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue under the special protection of Her Majesty, to enjoy separate Governments for so long as their respective peoples so desire …
Later it refers to the prospect of enabling the Federation, when those inhabitants so desire, to go forward with confidence towards the attainment of full membership of the Commonwealth.
Reference has been made to that in a number of debates, and I know that fresh assurances have been given by Government spokesmen, but what is to be the effect of this Bill? It is declared in the Preamble that we have to have regard to the wishes of the inhabitants. How are those wishes to be expressed, and by whom? Are we to be told in 1960, or maybe earlier or later, that the wishes have been expressed by some of those African representatives who have been elected on the general roll set up by this Measure; that is to say, who have been elected by a European majority?
Therefore, I ask that either in this debate or at some stage we should have two assurances. The first is that when the time comes for the Constitution to

be reviewed the desires of the European minority will not be allowed to outweigh those of the African majority. The second is that the views of African members elected by and responsible to a mainly European electorate will not be deemed to be the views of the African people themselves. We ought to have those assurances, either tonight or in the very near future.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: We were rather encouraged when, on the Third Reading of the Constitution Amendment Bill, the Colonial Secretary said that the House would have a further opportunity of considering its attitude towards this Electoral Bill. Those high hopes were dashed by the right hon. Gentleman's speech today. There was a marked contrast between his speech and the clear-sighted and forceful speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones).
There are many who are asking, "Now that the Constitution Amendment Bill is law, why should we attempt to veto the franchise Bill?" I would say, first, that this Bill will not, as some think, hold up the elections. It is still possible to hold them by the same procedure as that adopted in 1953. It is possible for the Federal Parliament to pass emergency legislation to enable the elections to take place. Of those authorities that attended the Constitutional Conference, when it was decided to wait until 1960 before considering revision, none, other than the Federal Government, has had an opportunity of making changes, and we see no reason why the Federal Government should be given this opportunity before 1960.
In particular, I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if the Government take the view that the passing of this Bill will stop discussions about the franchise in 1960. I hope that he can answer that. Speaking for this side, I can say that the door will still be left open for discussions about the franchise even though this Measure should be passed.
Many who previously supported the Constitution Amendment Bill did so because they thought that it would strengthen liberal elements in the Federation. I think that recent events have


shown that that is not so. We have had the resignation of one of the most liberal-minded of the Europeans who live in the Federation—the Southern Rhodesian Prime Minister, Mr. Garfield Todd. We were all encouraged when he was succeeded by Sir Edgar Whitehead. Many of us know Sir Edgar, and know that he is a fairly sound and reliable person. We were encouraged, but, like others, I imagine, I was interested to read in the Economist last week:
The defeat of Mr. Todd in Southern Rhodesia, even though he has not been succeeded by a reactionary, will increase British doubts over Central African professions of liberal intent.
I think that the Economist is absolutely right. Events have caused many of us on this side to be wary about supposed strengthening of the liberal elements in the Federation. Indeed, the decision to amalgamate the United Federal Party with Mr. Todd's old United Rhodesian Party, and align it under Sir Roy Welensky, does not bring any great hopes either. Indeed, it seems that this United Federal Party means a more solid support for the Electoral Bill.
The Federal Government Memorandum on the new electoral system reads:
The system offers a workable solution within the framework of existing constitutional arrangements to the twin problems of preserving political control in civilised and responsible hands and of associating the emergent African with the processes of government.
By this Electoral Bill, as has been shown, the Africans get far less chance of playing their part. In the present Federal Assembly, the European voters control 29 members and the African voters control four. But after the next election, under the new Bill, the Europeans will control 49 members and the Africans four. I admit that there are eight additional African members who will be elected by the joint voters' roll, but no one can say that they are truly representative.
I think the Secretary of State was a little misleading when he said that the African membership is doubled whereas the European membership is increased by two-thirds. It is true the Europeans have had their two-thirds, but the African membership has not been doubled by changing it from six to twelve but from nine to fifteen. It is not right to say

that the African membership has been doubled. Both have been increased by two-thirds.
We opposed the Constitution Amendment Bill, and we were not alone. Responsible newspapers and many organisations have opposed it. We said at the time that the Electoral Bill would make a fundamental change. We are seeing that change now taking place. This Bill will be a step towards handing over United Kingdom Government control of the Northern Territories. The Colonial Secretary has assured us more than once that this is not so. It is not what is said in the House by Ministers that counts. In the past we have thought that what we say would have a controlling influence, but when it becomes a matter of law, the judges who have to interpret it have ignored what Ministers have said. It is only what is in the Act that counts. We believe that the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Federal Electoral Bill are for the purpose of reducing the number of members chosen to represent African interests. We are not alone in this belief.
The Colonial Secretary has paid tribute, as we all do, to the African Affairs Board. It is agreed by all sides that it is a very responsible body. If we allow this Electoral Bill to go through with the elections on the new basis, does not the Colonial Secretary see that the Board will take a different attitude? The elections will endanger its very character. It will not have the strength and authority that it had before. We are supported in this view by a member of the African Affairs Board. The Reverend Andrew Doig has been sent to this country by a majority of the members of the Board to express its views and to urge the Government not to advise the Queen to give the Royal Assent to the Bill. If Europeans feel this way, how do Africans feel? I have seen, as I imagine many other hon. Members have seen, the comment made by a very trusted, knowledgeable and able African, Mr. Chirwa. What did he have to say in the Second Reading debate in the Federal Parliament on 16th December, 1957?
Prior to the Central African Federation, the African placed some faith in the British Government. That faith has withered away now, more particularly since the passing of the Constitution Amendment Bill by a majority of Members of the House of Commons.


Africans have come to the conclusion that they can neither look to Britain nor to the Europeans in Central Africa for justice, and they must look to their own means to get that justice. It is a very dangerous historical moment to which we are drifting in Central Africa".
He went on to say:
People who are oppressed come to a stage when they say, 'We cannot trust them any longer. We can only trust ourselves', and no amount of military forces behind the Government can stop the spirit of the people from expressing itself.
Finally, he said:
I think it is clear that the Government is trying to force Africans to resort to means which are unconstitutional so that they can get their rights".
Those quotations support the comments made by my hon. Friends who recently had the opportunity of seeing things for themselves in the Federation.
What of the African students in this country, those who will go back and be the future leaders of their people? All the organisations have joined together to protest to the Colonial Secretary against the Bill. Another independent member of the Federal Government, Dr. Alexander Scott, sitting in the Federal House said that he knew of no moderate African in Northern Rhodesia who intended to have anything whatever to do with the Electoral Bill.
We have the opinion of our own colleagues in this House who made their protest. There was a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation, four Members from the Government side and three from the Opposition, which stressed the need to convince the Africans they have a large political stake in the Federation.
They said:
This would mean a bold increase in representative Government in the Territories, together with a substantial widening of African influence in the election of members of the Federal Assembly.
We are certainly not giving that by supporting the Bill. We in the House of Commons have a responsibility to protect African rights in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. By the Electoral Bill, we are whittling away those rights. We are giving away—I hope I am not using too strong a word—our Colonial responsibilities to a white aristocracy. The Federal Government are being back by the United Kingdom Government, and they will strengthen the forces of reaction

rather than those of progressive Africans. Africans are losing faith.
I was a member of the mission which went to Kenya in 1954, and I was very gratified today to hear the Colonial Secretary refer to new proposals in regard to the future Constitution for Kenya. Those of us on that mission in 1954 proposed such suggestions then. We are now too late. Africans are intransigent, when they might have been accepting these very worthwhile proposals today. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the African Affairs Board is ignored, Africans in Kenya will have second thoughts about the Council of State which is to be created under the new Kenya Constitution. They will ask, "Is this how our Council of State is to be treated?"

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Both sets of proposals are attempts to get away from purely communal representation and to get on to a common roll basis, which we believe to be the only answer in a multiracial society.

Mr. Bottomley: In principle, there is no difference, but in practice, as I am trying to show, there is a fundamental difference. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary will, towards the end of my remarks, consider whether he agrees with my conclusions or not.
The Government should make it clear—and this will encourage the Council of State in Kenya—that the African Affairs Board is an essential organ through which British responsibilities towards Africa are invoked. The Board has been twice overruled. By a veto of the Electoral Bill, the Government could take the opportunity to re-establish the authority of the African Affairs Board. I have read, and I believe it to be true, that it was by arrangement between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Prime Minister of the Federation that the Electoral Bill came into being, the Constitution Amendment Bill first, and that it was not until subsequently that the African Affairs Board knew anything about it. What the Colonial Secretary appears to have done in this case is not the way to treat responsible authority.
The proposals in the Electoral Bill are for representation and the qualifications


for the vote, but there are two things which have to be done before the proposals become law. One of them is that the United Kingdom Government have to advise the Queen. The other is that the Nyasaland Legislative Council must approve the provisions for the elected members. So far as I know, the Nyasaland Legislative Council has not yet debated these proposals. Because of the special position of Nyasaland the Council has to approve of the franchise provisions before they can apply in that Territory, but the Nyasaland Council is still controlled by officials, officials who are responsible to the Secretary of State.
We are entitled to know what instructions the Secretary of State has given or intends to give to his officials in Nyasaland, and whether he intends to instruct them to vote against the decision of the African members who, according to his own constitutional provisions, are supposed to represent the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Territory.
This Bill, as we on this side of the House see it, is one more step towards domination of those countries by the tiny white minority. We expressed these fears, we said we thought this would be the outcome of Federation, in 1952 and 1953. We were assured by the Government that they had been meticulous to insist upon entrenched safeguards for the African majority. Now we see, within five years, how easily those safeguards can be circumvented. The first two recommendations the African Affairs Board has made are overthrown by the Government here.
As I have said, by this new Electoral Bill the character of the Legislature will be changed, and it will be brought a good deal more under white influence. What about African representation? It is going to be watered down still further by making the majority of the new members answerable in the main to the European electorates. Every step which is being taken is being taken with eyes fixed on 1960, the clear object being to secure dominion status in that year, thus enabling the European community to entrench its privileged position permanently.
Suppose this were to happen. Suppose that Dominion status is granted to the

Federation with these franchise arrangements or something similar to them. What guarantee has the Secretary of State to give to the vast majority of the population, who are Africans, and who at the moment are our wards, that they will ever be able to develop into political maturity? Does not every expression of Federal Government opinion show how unlikely this is going to be?
There are many, particularly on the other side of the House, who think that Lord Malvern and Sir Roy Welensky are very liberal-minded persons. Both of them are on record as saying that their view of partnership is that there can never be more than a half share for Africans, in spite of the fact that the Africans outnumber the Europeans by 30 to 1. I would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, have we forgotten the lesson of South Africa? There we gambled on the liberal instincts of the white population. We have seen the tragic results over the past 50 years. What are the safeguards we are guaranteeing to the Africans to ensure that the tragedy is not repeated in the Federation?

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he thinks that Campbell-Bannerman and the Liberals were wrong to give South Africa self-government when they did?

Mr. Bottomley: I am not suggesting that. I am saying that in giving self-government we should give democratic rights to all the peoples and not to a minority. Is it any wonder that in present circumstances the Africans consider that they are being sold out by Her Majesty's Government? That is the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and others.
Only last week, in the Central African Examiner, Mr. Garfield Todd was said to be forced to resign. In saying that, the leading article continued:
partnership will be a phrase greeted only with a bitter laugh; a single indictment of European hypocrisy.
Mr. Todd has been driven to resign and in the process of resigning he made an important statement. He said:
The danger at the present moment is not from extreme liberals, but from minorities who allow fear to sway them to such an extent that the reactionary element may take control of the United Federal Party.


If that is the danger now, how much more may it be so in the future, when either the United Federal Party or something worse—the Dominion Party—could hold complete sway over the Federation.
The simple point I am trying to make is that we in this country are at present the trustees for the political advancement of the Africans to lead them to their full democratic rights and we cannot abdicate that responsibility to a minority group, no matter what its race or colour.
The Prime Minister has returned from the Commonwealth. During his visit to Australia, he made what I thought was a very important statement when he said:
It is the special task of the British Commonwealth to show, in practice as well as in theory, that the principles of parliamentary democracy still meet the fundamental needs of men.
With that statement I agree, as do all my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I hope, hon. Members opposite also. If that is so and we are all in full agreement, let us not forget that the Federation is within the Commonwealth and that according to the Prime Minister's own words the principle of parliamentary democracy should meet its needs.
What is happening in the Federation is not a franchise for democracy, but a franchise for plutocracy. It puts a premium on wealth and confines the right to vote to those with money or with property. This has nothing to do with the principle of Parliamentary democracy. It presupposes that if a person is wealthy, no matter how he acquires his wealth, he has the qualifications to guide the fortunes of a country. Those who are living in humble circumstances, no matter how intelligent or politically conscious they may be or the contribution they are making to the community, are to be denied the democratic right of exercising a vote because they do not have the wealth. This is not the way to build up a healthy democratic state nor to provide for racial partnership.
We on this side of the House accept our obligations. We are quite prepared to assist in the development of this new member of a great Commonwealth, but we consider that qualifications are essential for its establishment. The first is that it must be founded on broad

democratic principles, with the political right of participation in government guaranteed to every citizen regardless of wealth, colour or race. The second qualification is that the establishment of such a State must be approved by the vast majority of its citizens and not simply by a small privileged clique.
We have not been encouraged by the contribution today of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, when he replies to the debate, will be able to say that he accepts these principles, and, in accepting them, will say that the veto will be applied. If he cannot accept what we propose tonight, I ask him to say how he can reconcile these principles and ideas with the measure of racial discrimination that the Government are forcing through tonight. If they insist upon it, we shall have no alternative but to go into the Division Lobby.

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): While I was unable to accept all the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), I think that there will be other hon. Members, at any rate on this side of the House, who appreciated the quiet way in which he approached the subject and the closely reasoned arguments he put forward, which were in marked contrast to the tone and approach of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who opened the debate for the Opposition.
My hon. Friends the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) have already dealt very effectively with some of the points which the right hon. Member for Wakefield advanced, but there are still one or two on which I should like to animadvert even at this late stage of the debate. Eight years ago, when the right hon. Member was Secretary of State for the Colonies, it was not considered that the Africans in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland had reached a stage of political maturity which allowed them to participate effectively in the process of direct election. Yet the right hon. Member was making claims during his speech, as far as I understood them, for the introduction of an African franchise today,


to be applied to both those territories, far more ambitious than anything which was advanced by any responsible representative of African opinion in the Federation itself.
Certainly, they were far more advanced than anything that Sir John Moffat would put forward. After all, Sir John Moffat in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill, said:
The European demand is for a high standard of education and of wealth to prevent himself being swamped at an election and to retain power, at any rate for a reasonable period, in his own hands and under existing conditions. I believe that that demand is a Justifiable one.
I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member opposite does anything for the benefit of liberal opinion in the Federation by advancing extreme ideas which could amount only to a radical and sudden transference in the existing balance of political power in that part of the world. I am quite certain that when this debate is read, and, most particularly, the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield, there will be many people who regard themselves genuinely and sincerely as liberals in the Federation who will say, "Save us from our friends."
I paraphrase the point made by the right hon. Member, and if I do not give it absolutely correctly I am sure that he will take the opportunity of correcting me, but I understood him to say that it was important that African influence in the Federal Parliament should be increased because, although certain powers over African affairs were retained at a territorial level, economic responsibility was vested in the Federal Parliament, and that because economic policy was of great importance to the African it was important that he should have a say in that policy. But our own colleagues of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation, who went over there a short time ago, made a special point in their report of the economic progress which the territories had made since Federation was introduced.
I cannot see, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman can argue that in those matters which have affected the African's interest and which are being handled by the Federal Parliament on Federal level, the Federal Parliament with its present

composition has fallen down on its responsibility for the economic interest of the African. The truth is, as has been said by my hon. Friends who have supported us this evening, that on the economic side the Federation has made remarkable progress, as regards both Europeans and Africans, during the very short time that it has been in existence.

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that I denied that economic progress had been made under the Federation. I accept that economic progress has been made under the Federation, although I do not accept that that progress is due to the existence of the Federation. Further, I did not say that the Africans, merely because they had an economic interest in the working of the Federation, should be there. I am arguing that on the elementary human rights of the African he should be represented in the Federation.

Mr. Alport: I can only reply that, as I read the report of our colleagues, they felt that a great deal of credit was due to the fact that the Federation has been able to assist in increasing the economic resources of all the three territories concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman used the old and well-known quotation about power corrupting. I say to him that, in Africa, fear corrupts even more quickly and more drastically, and the kind of thing which he said would send a shudder of fear through the minds of many people who are reasonable, honourable and liberally-minded; people who believe that if, by some chance, the party opposite came into power, the whole of the balance of security in the Federation would be upset.

Mr. Stonehouse: Mr. Stonehouse rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman and I agreed that we would only take 20 minutes each in order that private Members could have as much time as possible in this short debate. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) will allow me to develop my arguments to the best of my ability in the short time available.
One further thing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the pattern of political power which was being brought out


through this Electoral Bill would be impressed on the Federation for generations to come. He knows as well as I do that many matters will be under consideration during the conference of 1960, in which all the five Governments will participate.
Therefore, there is no question of this being a final decision, although I agree with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that, now the transitional period of the electoral system has been bridged, there may be strong arguments for trying to ensure that this particular development on a common roll basis proceeds naturally and gradually to develop over the period ahead. It is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to give the impression that something done now will stamp an impression of a pattern of constitutional power and constitutional development indefinitely upon the Federation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) put forward the argument that, regardless of the merits of the electoral Bill, it was important for us at this time to support the opinion advanced by the African Affairs Board, because unless we did that we would not be encouraging the Africans to have faith in the safeguard which had been established in their interests under the Constitution.
My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has a duty, as my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary said, to consider any reference to him of this sort upon its merits. It is interesting that the African Affairs Board's letter refers exclusively to the problems of the Northern Territories. It does not refer in any way to the undoubted advantages which can come through the Electoral Bill to the African community in Southern Rhodesia. It is significant that both the European and the African members of the African Affairs Board representing Southern Rhodesia voted against the majority when it came to a vote on the reservation on this piece of legislation, because they were clear, as it is clear to anyone who studies the Bill on its merits, that it represents a considerable advance for the Southern Rhodesian community.
I make that point because it illustrates that when making this decision my noble Friend has a duty to take into

account all matters which are relative to the merits of this or any piece of legislation referred to him; and, in fact, he is able to do so with a certain objectivity, which is one of the reasons for ensuring that legislation of this sort comes back here to be judged by the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. C. Davies: What the African Affairs Board pointed out was that the proportion of Africans elected by Africans—the people trusted by Africans—was four out of 49 as against four out of 29. The effect that that has upon the African mind is something which ought to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Alport: That is on the assumption that all the Africans who are to be elected on the additional new special roll are all to be elected on rolls on which there is a majority of Europeans and I would not accept that assumption.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) asked what was the basis for the monetary qualifications incorporated in the Bill. The basis is the Tredgold Report, which is followed precisely and which was the result, as the hon. and learned Member will know, of a very careful investigation by a highly reputable Commission, under no less a person than the Lord Chief Justice himself, into what would be a proper and effective basis for monetary qualifications for the franchise in Rhodesia. The hon. and learned Member has no right to suggest that that was an effort by the Federal Government, for reasons of their own, to increase the monetary qualification in order to exclude as many Africans as possible. That was not the object. It was an attempt by the Federal Government to follow advice given by a most reputable body on this matter.
The hon. and learned Member and the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham asked what was the position about prior assent by the United Kingdom Government to proposed legislation. I will try to explain the position as clearly as I can. It has always been the practice that where the Government in the United Kingdom have the right to make a final decision in respect of Southern Rhodesian or Federal legislation, the Government concerned have consulted the United Kingdom Government beforehand about the general principles of the


proposed legislation. The commonsense reason for that is that it is obviously most desirable to avoid initiating legislation which has no hope of being accepted in principle by the United Kingdom right from the start.
The fact that the Government of the United Kingdom indicate that they see no reason why the proposed legislation should not be introduced, with good prospects of receiving eventual approval, does not in any way commit the United Kingdom Government to giving that approval, nor does it mean that they will automatically ignore objections raised against that legislation by the African Affairs Board or, indeed, from any other responsible quarter.
Let me emphasise that this practice is not something new, but one which has been followed by successive Governments for the last thirty years. The African Affairs Board was established to act frankly as a brake on the Federal Government, particularly in the field of the respective legislative rights of the Federation and the territorial Governments. It was not intended to be a brake on the actions or decisions of the United Kingdom Government, or, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies pointed out in our previous debate, to usurp the responsibility which we have reserved for ourselves.
We are not, and we were not at any time, under an obligation always to accept the opinions of the African Affairs Board, but, as I have tried to describe earlier, it has been our duty, as far as

possible, to judge these matters in accordance with the wider and long-term view and in accordance with the political situation, as we can see it for ourselves.

I realise that some people in this country regard one or other of the alternative franchise systems as being preferable. I realise the sincerity with which the majority of the members of the African Affairs Board hold the opinion that the Electoral Bill is a differentiating Bill. I know that there are many, both here and in the Federation, who wish to see an increase in the pace at which Africans are associated with the exercise of political power, but, as I have said, and as my right hon. Friend said, it is my noble Friend's responsibility to judge this Bill on its merits. He must give full weight to the fact that it has been passed by the appropriate majority in the Federal Parliament, to which we in the United Kingdom have transferred a great measure of responsibility.

A distinguished African journalist said in the African Daily News, a few weeks ago:
The inescapable fact is that a solution for Africa has got to come out of Africa and that of the Federation from the Federation.
We have full faith that the good sense of the Federal Government and the Federal electorate will ensure that a solution to the many difficulties which face that country will come from the Federation itself.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 305.

Division No. 41.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Boyd, T. C.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brockway, A. F.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Anderson, Frank
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, G.


Baird, J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Balfour, A.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, H. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Carmichael, J.
Diamond, John


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Cast'e, Mrs. B. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Champion, A. J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Benson, Sir George
Chapman, W. D.
Dye, S.


Beswick, Frank
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Clunie, J.
Edelman, M.


Blackburn, F.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Blenkinsop, A.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Boardman, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cove, W. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fernyhough, E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Cronin, J. D.
Finch, H. J.


Bowles, F. G.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fletcher, Eric




Foot, D. M.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McCann, J.
Ross, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
MacColl, J. E.
Royle, C.


Gibson, C. W.
McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gooch, E. G
McGovern, J.
Short, E. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McInnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Simon
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, J. W.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hannan, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mason, Roy
Sparks, J. A.


Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Steele, T.


Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Healey, Denis
Mikardo, Ian
Storehouse, John


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Holmes, Horace
Moss, R.
Swingler, S. T.


Holt, A. F.
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hubbard, T. F.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.
Timmons, J.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Tomney, F.


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, W. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Padley, W. E.
Viant, S. P.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.
Warbey, W. N.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Watkins, T. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Weitzman, D.


Janner, B.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Parkin, B. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paton, John
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Peart, T. F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pentland, N.
Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Plummer, sir Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Prentice, R. E.
Willey, Frederick


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, A. R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


King, Dr. H. M.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Lawson, G. M.
Rankin, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Ledger, R. J.
Redhead, E. C.
Winterbottom, Richard


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reeves, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, William
Woof, R. E.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Lewis, Arthur
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Logan, D. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Brooman-White, R. C.


Aitken, W. T.
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bryan, P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Burden, F. F. A.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Arbuthnot, John
Bingood, J. C.
Campbell, Sir David


Armstrong, C. W.
Bigge-Davison, J. A.
Carr, Robert


Ashton, H.
Bishop, F. P.
Cary, Sir Robert


Aster, Hon. J. J.
Black, C. W.
Channon, Sir Henry


Atkins, H. E.
Body, R. F.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Cole, Norman


Balmel, Lord
Boyle, Sir Edward
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Barber, Anthony
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Cooke, Robert


Barlow, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cooper, A. E.


Barter, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.







Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Partridge, E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hyde, Montgomery
Peel, W. J.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cunningham, Knox
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Dance, J. C. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Pott, H. P.


Deedes, w. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Powell, J. Enoch


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Profumo, J. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, D.
Ramsden, J. E.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Keegan, D.
Redmayne, M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)




Duncan, Sir James
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Remnant, Hon. P.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kershaw, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kimball, M.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castleupon Tyne, N.)
Kirk, P. M.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lagden, G. W.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lambton, Viscount
Robertson, Sir David


Erroll, F. J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fell, A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Finlay, Graeme
Leavey, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fisher, Nigel
Leburn, W. G.
Russell, R. S.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Forrest, G.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Sharples, R. C.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Shepherd, William


Freeth, Denzil
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gammans, Lady
Llewellyn, D.T.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Soames, Christopher


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gibson-Watt, D.
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McKibbin, Alan
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Green, A.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Storey, S.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gurden, Harold
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin
Teeling, W.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Temple, John M.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macelesf'd)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Hay, John
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mathew, R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mawby, R. L.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hesketh, R. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Madlicott, Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vesper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hope, Lord John
Neave, Airay
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Hornby, R. P.
Nicholls, Harmar
Wall, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith, Mist M. P.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Webbe, Sir H.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Howard, John (Test)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral, J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Handon, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Woollam, John Victor


Hurd, A. R.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh,S.)
Page, R. G.
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

RIVER TYNE (POLLUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

10.11 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not need to detain the House by arguing the merits of action to remedy the pollution of the River Tyne, because the condition of the river is only too well known to those who live in the County of Northumberland or on the banks of the river. The position today is that the condition of the river is deplorable and intolerable. I would not be using too strong a word if I said that the condition is almost indecent.
This is no party political question. All political parties, all local authorities and every individual with any knowledge of the situation of the river will agree that urgent action is necessary. I asked the Minister last week if he could state what he was doing to find a solution of this pollution problem. In effect, he answered that it was the primary responsibility of the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board which deals with the matter and which had its responsibilities well in mind. That, so far as I was concerned, was much too complacent an answer.
One of my ambitions before I die is to see that the pollution of the River Tyne is dealt with and the tunnel is built. As this matter has been going on for about twenty-five years, I feel that if it is to go on for another twenty-five years I shall not have the satisfaction of achieving my ambition.
What is the position? In 1936, the Commissioner for the Special Area in the North, Mr. Euan Wallace, recommended that a special consulting engineer should be appointed for the specific purpose of dealing or trying to deal with this question of pollution. As a result, nothing happened. In 1953, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government initiated discussions with the appropriate local authorities, and it was decided that float tests should be taken, the local authorities, of course, to provide the necessary finance. We knew that the float tests were taking place. I have just ascertained that the report is expected to be received by the local authorities at the end of this

year. That again indicates that, front 1953 to 1958, this matter has been under discussion. If the float tests prove successful, it will then be the responsibility of the appropriate river board to decide for a main trunk sewer to be provided.
I understand the cost would be between £10 million and £15 million, a colossal sum. The experts are all agreed that a main trunk sewer would be the most suitable and appropriate way of dealing with the problem. We all hope that the float tests will prove successful. If they should not prove successful, the problem will have to be dealt with in a much more piecemeal way. That also would be a very expensive way, but that would be the solution of the problem if for technical reasons the main trunk sewer proposition could not he carried out.
I understand that Newcastle Corporation is undertaking the preparation of a comprehensive report on the whole question. All of us are delighted to pay tribute to Newcastle Corporation for its initiative in this mater. I understand that the report will be available, first for presentation to the local authority, and then I hope for general publication, in about six months. Then we shall have the whole picture before us.
I want as many hon. Members as possible from the North to take part in this debate because we must impress the Minister on the urgency of the matter. I want a specific assurance on one point. Suppose that the main trunk sewer is agreed to and that there are no technical difficulties to going ahead with the scheme, can we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that money will be allocated under the block grant to local authorities so that part of this tremendous cost may be borne by the Treasury? It is quite unrealistic to suppose that it can be borne by the general ratepayers. They will have to pay for the technical analyses before we finally arrive at the question of what action is practicable and possible.
It will give great satisfaction to the river board, local authorities, ratepayers and Members of Parliament concerned if we can hear from my hon. Friend that when a final decision is taken either for a main trunk sewer or for a more piecemeal arrangement to deal with pollution


in the block grant there will be a reasonable allocation of finance to local authorities concerned provided they are prepared to spend money to deal with the terrible problem of pollution.
I want to say with all the emphasis I can command that this problem has been left in abeyance far too long. Unless we have as quick action as possible the future of the River Tyne, particularly from the point of view of many of my constituents who earn their living on the river, will be a very dangerous and uncertain one. I hope that my hon. Friend will be in a position to give us an assurance about finance and that in future when we ask Questions we can shake his complacency and make him take an active interest in this most important matter.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I should like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) on raising this very important subject, and to reinforce everything that she has said. Perhaps I may tell the Parliamentary Secretary that when he replied to the hon. Lady's Question the other day by saying that this was a matter for the river board, he was rather misleading. The river board is not responsible for the cleaning of tidal waters, and it is with those that we are principally concerned.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the river board in question has, like others, been asking his Ministry for authority to extend its functions throughout the tidal waters. That makes it all the more extraordinary that he should have given that Answer. Does he accept responsibility for the fact that an adjacent authority, though some miles from the Tyneside and actually in another catchment area, is pumping its crude sewage over the hill to bring it down into the Tyne—as if we ourselves had not enough sewage of our own to put into the river. I refer to the Ponteland area whose scheme, I think, the hon. Gentleman's Ministry sanctioned about three years ago, in spite of the fact that a sewage farm would have cost very little more in capital expenditure.
We all agree that this is a most urgent matter. If the major capital scheme cannot be sanctioned, cannot the Ministry

agree, at least, to give authorities in the smaller areas, in the outer developments and suburbs of the city, sanction to go ahead with relatively small schemes which would at least give some relief in the present appalling situation?

10.22 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I, too, wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and agree also completely with all that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has said. In the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and in the surrounding districts, there is great concern about the state of the Tyne. The Newcastle people, with great regularity, ask those of us who represent it in Parliament what is to be done about it. In supporting my hon. Friend, I would say to the Minister that if we cannot have the big trunk sewer scheme, let us get down to what can be done. Surely, no more sewage from the new housing estates and building areas should go into the Tyne. Let us get down to the business of generally making the River Tyne reasonably pure once again.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: For, I think, almost the first time, I find myself supporting the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and on this occasion I do so wholeheartedly, and congratulate her on her initiative in raising this debate. I hope that the Minister realises what the problem is, and how big it is.
He should try to visualise the Tyneside area. It consists of the river, with a fairly steep bank on the south and a gentle slope on the north, with a great conurbation of about 1 million people stretching from the mouth of the river upwards for about 15 miles. It is a big industrial area, and includes about 15 local authorities. Practically the whole of the sewage of that great population and that industrial area goes into the river. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) says, even the sewage from Ponteland is pumped over a very high ridge of ground into the Tyne.
Until the middle of the nineteenth century the problem was not so bad. The thing that really polluted the Tyne


was the change from earth closets to water closets. The result is that now, I suppose, the River Tyne is probably the worst polluted river in the kingdom—

Mr. J. C. Jennings: No.

Mr. Short: Yes, indeed. It is one big open sewer running right through the middle of this conurbation, with a population of 1 million people.
The hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of trunk sewage, and said that the tests at present going on will show whether or not that is possible. That, of course, is the obvious solution. She also mentioned the efforts of Captain Euan Wallace, Commissioner for Special Areas, in the middle 'thirties. The trouble is that this matter crops up from time to time. Someone comes along and says it will cost £10 million, £15 million or £20 million. That frightens everybody, and the result is that nothing is done. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, I cannot understand why, at any rate, a start cannot be made. Why cannot every local authority in the Tyneside area start putting its own house in order? Let us start in a small way. I would be satisfied to see, say, a 20-year programme started to clean the river. At any rate, we would know that at the end of that period our objective would be achieved.
I appeal to the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has done, to take the initiative and to push the local authorities to see that a scheme is started and to ensure, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth said, that the finance is available to do the job. For heaven's sake, let us have some initiative from the Minister and at least get the job started.

10.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and other hon. Members who have participated so very briefly in the debate. I am afraid that I shall have to speak rather quickly if I am to cover the points raised by various hon. Members.
First, the problem of sewerage and sewage is not a national problem but is

essentially a problem for the local authorities. That is widely recognised both by local authorities, local authority associations, and, I believe, by both political parties. Although I shall have a word or two to say about the initiative which has been taken by the Minister in this matter, I should not like the House to think that the initiative regarding sewerage and sewage rightly belongs to my right hon. Friend.
It is true that the condition of the tidal waters of the Tyne has been the subject of representations by fishery and other interests for many years past. The size of this problem may be judged from the most recent report of the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board, which shows that sewage from a population of about 800,000 people is discharged into the river between Wylam and Tyne-mouth, a distance. I think, of about 20 miles. The conditions are made a good deal worse by the discharge of various effluents from industrial premises along the banks of the river. In the same report, the river board record that four large salmon and 20 sea trout were recently caught in the Tyne, so all is not lost yet.
I should like to make it plain that the pollution that is the subject of this complaint is almost entirely centered in the tidal reaches of the river over which the river board has no jurisdiction. I shall return to the point made about the form of my reply to the Parliamentary Question, if I may. But, in 1935, the Commissioner for Special Areas set up a special committee to examine the tidal part of the river and to advise on whether its condition was so dangerous as to call for measures to avoid risks to health. That Committee found that there was evidence of serious pollution. However, it did not accept as proved that the condition of the estuary was so harmful to public health.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) referred to the River Tyne as an open sewer. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that. Certainly none of the medical officers of health representing local authorities on Tyneside have gone anywhere near as far as saying that.

Mr. Short: That is the phrase used by the medical officer.

Mr. Bevins: It may have been used by a local medical officer, but I assure the House that not a single complaint about the condition of the Tyne has been received by my right hon. Friend from any medical officer of health in the service of a Tyneside Corporation in recent years.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: It is in the report. The hon. Gentleman's Ministry receives the annual report of the medical officer of health for Newcastle. In each of those annual reports, for a number of years, he has drawn special attention to this festering mess of water.

Mr. Bevins: I repeat that it has never on any specific occasion been represented to my right hon. Friend, and it has certainly never been said that the condition of the River Tyne represented any danger to public health.
Since the war, it has been necessary to consider whether sites should be earmarked for sewage treatment works for the Tyneside towns and, in view of that, one of my right hon. Friend's engineering inspectors visited Tyneside in February, 1949. In 1953, my Ministry took the initiative—and I emphasise that—in calling meetings in Newcastle, which were attended by those local authorities which were willing to take an interest in the problem. My Ministry was not dragging its feet, and if there was any lack of initiative it was certainly not in Whitehall.
As a result of the meetings, ten of the authorities combined in 1955 to engage a consultant to carry out float tests to find if it would be practicable, from public health and amenity points of view, to discharge untreated sewage from all the authority areas into the sea through a single outfall at Souter Point in the Boldon Urban District area.
I understand that the Newcastle City Engineer has, with the approval of his local authority, acted on behalf of most of the Tyneside authorities to co-ordinate the arrangements and engage a consultant. I am bound to say, as hon. Members may know, that there were delays which have been said to be due to the weather and the consultant at present estimates that he will not be able to complete his tests until the summer of this year.
If the results of the tests show that sewage cannot be discharged into the sea, then full or partial treatment will have to be considered and, if the recommendation of the consultant is for a joint treatment scheme, then the local authorities would have to employ a consulting engineer to prepare a scheme or schemes as the case may be. They would also need to determine the question of suitable sites for the various works. On the other hand, of course, if the tests show that discharge into the sea through one long outfall was practicable, a scheme would also have to be prepared, but, as has been stated this evening, it would be much less costly than the other one, probably amounting to one-quarter or one-fifth of the cost of the other scheme.
When the report of the tests is received by the authorities and has been considered, the authorities will have to decide in conjunction with my Department how to phase the work and to meet the cost. I do not want to conceal from hon. Members interested in this subject the fact that a combined scheme, whether the one or the other, will be very expensive and will have to be phased over a considerable time. However, not until we reach that point will it be necessary for my Ministry to take the initiative again. Once the reports have been received on Tyneside and have been considered, we shall be glad to co-operate in any way we can.
One or two specific questions were asked during this short discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth complained about the complacent nature of the answer to her Parliamentary Question last Tuesday. It is only fair to point out that, although I said that the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board was primarily responsible for the condition of the River Tyne, I went on to say that some of the local authorities were now exploring ways of disposing of domestic sewage, but that it would have to be some time before they could formulate their proposals.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) suggested that that reply was misleading, because I referred to the fact that the river board was the body primarily concerned with the condition of the Tyne. That is perfectly true and is a statement of fact. It is only fair to point out that my hon.


Friend's Question did not refer to the tidal parts of the Tyne, but to the River Tyne.

Mr. Popplewell: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the part of the river under discussion is the tidal part and that the part he is now referring to is well up the river. That comes under the control of the river board, but it is not affected by pollution.

Mr. Bevins: I do not dissent from that—

Mr. Popplewell: Then what is the argument?

Mr. Bevins: The questioner put a certain question and I gave a factual answer. I added that the local authorities were seeking ways of improving the position. I think that is perfectly fair.
My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that, in the event of one or other of these schemes coming to the point where it was considered a reasonable proposition by the local authorities acting together, and perhaps by the river board as well, we should be prepared to make financial allowance under the general grant. I can give no such assurance. It would not be for my right hon. Friend in any circumstances to say that it would be possible so to amend the formula of the general grant as to include financial assistance for a sewage scheme. That kind of measure falls entirely outside the perview of the general or block grant.

Mr. Short: The fact that this is not a relevant scheme within the legislation we are discussing and does not come within any of the eleven categories would not preclude the Ministry from giving a grant towards this excellent project.

Mr. Bevins: There is no legal power for my right hon. Friend to afford financial assistance.

Dame Irene Ward: He could take it.

Mr. Bevins: That is all very well, but that is not the question. The question I was asked was whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared so to amend tile general grant formula as to make provision for a scheme of that sort. My answer is, "No." This is a financial responsibility for the local authorities. Indeed, the whole matter is primarily one for the local authorities. My right

hon. Friend has no cause for shame in this matter; indeed, he and not the local authorities took the initiative. We are perfectly willing to help on the basis of advice and to see that the scheme is properly phased when the time comes.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister must realise how disappointing his reply will be to the whole of the Tyneside area. We all agree that normally the question of sewage disposal is one for the local authorities. But here there are literally hundreds of industrial and domestic sewers running into the Tyne, and to make anything like a scheme is outside the financial provisions of any local authority.

Mr. Bevins: There are many local authorities, and some not as substantial and powerful as the City of Newcastle, which have undertaken enormous sewerage schemes involving great expenditure. There is no reason why the municipalities on Tyneside should not get down to the job.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister overlooks the fact that local authorities which have embarked on such schemes have received a percentage grant from the Government.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Mr. Popplewell: After 18 years' experience of local authority work, I can say that, if the Minister looks again, he will find that sewerage development ranks for some kind of grant. I hope that the Minister will not close his eyes to the need for financial assistance when the reports are put in. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to be so emphatic on that point. The pollution of the Tyne is very great. The Minister may dissent from that and maintain that there are other rivers where the pollution is greater, but that is doubtful. In this case the pollution is of such a degree as to be a nuisance to public health, and the report of the medical officer of health has drawn special attention to it.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.